# Do misdemeanors constitute reasonable suspicion?



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Low Hanging Fruit: Stop based on reasonable suspicion of a completed misdemeanor crime held to be unconstitutional*










A patrol officer spots a car closely matching the description of a vehicle used to flee an armed robbery twelve days earlier. Although the officer sees no traffic violation, the officer hits the red and blue lights and makes an investigative stop. Lawful stop? Sure, based on reasonable suspicion that the vehicle and occupants were involved in a forcible felony, even though the felony was committed nearly two weeks prior and in the neighboring city. The United States Supreme Court found this very stop to meet constitutional requirements for an investigative detention (or "Terry" stop) in United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221 (1985). However, would the same rule apply if the stop were based on suspicion of a completed misdemeanor crime instead of a violent felony?
The Ninth Circuit United States Court of Appeals became the first federal appellate court to tackle that question head on in the recent case of United States v. Grigg, 2007 WL 2379615 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court said "no." Different rules apply to stops based on reasonable suspicion of completed commission of a misdemeanor crime. However, as described below, there are often perfectly legal reasons to make an investigative stop when the crime under investigation is a misdemeanor.

Full Article: http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/KenWallentine/articles/1357303/


----------



## mpr4601 (Mar 24, 2007)

And for good reason.


----------



## Irish Wampanoag (Apr 6, 2003)

Reasonable Suspicion is Reasonable Suspicion wether its a felony or misdemeanor. So once again the 9th is out of touch with modern society. I feel you have upto 6 years to look for that suspicious person or MV or until the statue of limitations run out. My two cents


----------



## alphadog1 (Oct 16, 2006)

The Ninth Circuit is ultra liberal...similar to our SJC.


----------



## Guest (Nov 5, 2007)

Hmnnn... Perhaps the court was considering that misdemeanors are more frequent and less serious than felonies, and that "Terry" stops based on misdemeanors could be sufficiently broad as to provide cause to stop anyone at any time, which I think they probably feel is unconsitutional. It may not be popular on this thread, but I think a reasonable argument exists.


----------

