State v. Anderson
415 S.C. 441, 2016 S.C. LEXIS 23, 782 S.E.2d 51 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual's mere proximity to a high-crime area or a location subject to a search warrant, even when combined with evasive behavior upon seeing police, does not, without more, establish the particularized and objective basis required for reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment.
Facts:
- Police obtained a no-knock search warrant for a house on Dobbs Street based on surveillance of drug activity.
- Officers learned that runners used an adjacent footpath, which was not included in the warrant, to transport drugs from the house.
- Detectives were instructed to secure the footpath and detain any person found on it during the raid.
- During the raid, Detective Hyatt saw Donald Marquice Anderson and a woman on the footpath, walking away from the Dobbs house.
- When Anderson saw police officers at both ends of the path, he and the woman “veered to the right in a quick manner” off the footpath.
- Detective Hyatt drew his weapon, ordered Anderson to the ground, and handcuffed him.
- A subsequent pat-down search of Anderson revealed a plastic bag containing crack cocaine in his front pocket.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Marquice Anderson was indicted for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine.
- Anderson filed a motion to suppress the drug evidence, arguing the stop and search were unlawful.
- The trial court denied the motion to suppress.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court found Anderson guilty.
- Anderson (appellant) appealed the conviction to the court of appeals.
- The court of appeals (an intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's ruling, finding the police had reasonable suspicion.
- The Supreme Court of South Carolina (the state's highest court) granted certiorari to review the decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual's presence on a footpath known for drug activity near a house being raided, combined with evasive movement upon seeing police, create reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop under the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hearn
No. The investigatory stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. A person’s presence in a high-crime area and evasive behavior are factors in the totality of the circumstances, but they are insufficient on their own to create a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. The search warrant was for a discrete property that did not include the footpath where Anderson was located. Officers did not observe Anderson fleeing from the targeted house, nor did they recognize him as a suspect involved with the drug activity. To hold that these facts constitute reasonable suspicion would erode the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals who happen to live in or pass through areas with high crime rates. The circumstances here amount to no more than an 'inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch,' which is insufficient to justify a seizure.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the limitations on the 'high-crime area' and 'evasive conduct' factors in the reasonable suspicion analysis. It establishes that these factors, even in combination, require additional particularized evidence linking the specific individual to a crime to justify a Terry stop. The ruling protects individuals from seizures based merely on their location and a generalized, ambiguous reaction to police presence, thereby preventing a de facto lowering of Fourth Amendment protections for residents of high-crime neighborhoods. Future cases will likely cite this precedent to challenge stops where the state's justification rests primarily on an individual's location and seemingly nervous behavior.
