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.
involved in criminal activity.” Goodwin, 11 Va. App. at 367. Additionally, none of the officers
knew Chisholm nor were they aware of his criminal history. As a result, the Commonwealth
failed to establish any nexus between the area’s crime and Chisholm, as officers neither
suspected nor observed him engaging in criminal activity.
Furthermore, the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate evidence of frequent crime in the
specific area where Chisholm was detained. Instead, the Commonwealth relied on a generalized
“high crime area” designation and applied it broadly to the southeastern portion of Newport
News, without tying that characterization to Chisholm’s conduct or to the specific location where
he was detained. Moreover, the Commonwealth did not provide any evidence of heavy crime
occurring around that time in the specific area where Chisholm was detained. Although Officer
Smith did mention there were shootings, robberies, and other crimes prevalent in the
southeastern portion of Newport News, the record does not indicate there was any heavy crime
occurring in the specific area where Chisholm was detained.
Thus, a high crime area “counts among the totality of the circumstances we consider, but
it does little to support the claimed particularized suspicion as to [Chisholm].” United States v.
Massenburg, 654 F.3d 480, 488 (4th Cir. 2011). Because the officers failed to identify any
nexus between Chisholm’s conduct and criminal activity in the area where he was detained, the
“high crime area” designation adds little to the reasonable suspicion analysis. Rather,
Chisholm’s “[p]resence in a high-crime area . . . is as likely an explanation for innocent and non-
dangerous gun possession as it is an indication that gun possession is illegal or dangerous, and it
does nothing to help the police tell the difference.” United States v. Robinson, 846 F.3d 694, 715
(4th Cir. 2017) (Harris, J., dissenting). Otherwise, officers could treat ordinary, non-criminal
conduct, such as Chisholm’s, as suspicious simply because a person lives in, travels through, or
goes about daily life in a high crime area. Hence, officers could apply the “high crime” label
- 18 -Jump to an indexed page (25 of 25)