This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
backward. Even when viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, the facts do not
establish reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify the detention.
Although we accept the trial court’s factual finding that the area where Chisholm was
detained was a high crime area, the record is devoid of any evidence that Chisholm engaged in or
was suspected of engaging in criminal conduct linking him to any such crime. Accordingly, the
high crime nature of the area cannot be attributed to his conduct or be used to support reasonable
suspicion. It certainly cannot be ignored that Chisholm had just left the neighborhood market
carrying groceries.
The government must evaluate the specific facts and circumstances when suspecting
criminal activity, because “[a] person’s Fourth Amendment rights are not lessened simply
because he or she happens to live or travel in a ‘high crime’ area.” McCain v. Commonwealth,
275 Va. 546, 553 (2008). Likewise, “[a]n individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal
activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the
person is committing a crime.” Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124. That is because “presence in a high
crime [area] is a fact too generic and susceptible to innocent explanation to satisfy the reasonable
suspicion inquiry.” Id. at 139 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Indeed, the
“demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central
teaching of [the Supreme] Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” United States v. Cortez,
449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 n.18).
Consistent with that teaching, the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of specificity
demands a nexus between the particular crime prevalent in a high crime area and the defendant’s
conduct indicating likely involvement in that crime. In most federal cases, courts have identified
some combination of “(1) a nexus between the type of crime most prevalent or common in the
- 16 -Jump to an indexed page (25 of 25)