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.
area and the type of crime suspected in the instant case,”11 “(2) limited geographic boundaries of
the ‘area’ or ‘neighborhood’ being evaluated,”12 or “(3) temporal proximity between evidence of
heightened criminal activity and the date of the stop or search at issue.”13 United States v.
Wright, 485 F.3d 45, 53-54 (1st Cir. 2007).
Here, however, when considering Officer McLaughlin observed Chisholm in a high
crime area, the Commonwealth failed to satisfy any of those requirements. It identified no nexus
between the crimes purportedly prevalent in the area and the offense Chisholm was suspected of
committing. It did not define or limit the geographic boundaries of the area in which Chisholm
was detained, nor did it establish any temporal link between heightened criminal activity and the
time or location of the stop.
As stated earlier, Chisholm was walking down the street after purchasing groceries from
a corner store with a friend in broad daylight. There is nothing in the record that Chisholm was
going to commit any crime such as robbery, burglary, or other criminal activity involving
firearms. Officer McLaughlin also testified that he did not suspect or observe Chisholm
engaging in criminal activity when he first saw him walking down the sidewalk. Moreover, “the
police had no information, such as a tip or police report, suggesting that [Chisholm] was
11
See Wardlow, 528 U.S. at 124 (emphasizing that the officers suspected narcotics
activity and that the encounter occurred in an area “known for heavy narcotics trafficking,” thus
providing a nexus between the suspected offense and the location). See also United States v.
Edmonds, 240 F.3d 55, 60 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (recognizing that reliance on a high crime area is
proper where officers articulate a connection between the type of crime frequently occurring in
the area and the offense the defendant was suspected of committing).
12
See United States v. Caruthers, 458 F.3d 459, 468 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding that reliance
on a high crime area was proper where the record contained evidence of frequent criminal
activity at the specific intersection where the defendant was stopped).
13
See United States v. Bailey, 417 F.3d 873, 874-75, 877 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that it
was proper to consider the location a high crime area where the record showed recent criminal
activity at the specific location of the stop).
- 17 -Jump to an indexed page (25 of 25)