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.
As a result, the trial court erred by treating gun possession combined with generalized
contextual factors as sufficient to establish reasonable suspicion to justify detention. Indeed,
“[t]he flaw in the State’s case is that none of the circumstances preceding the officers’ detention
of [Chisholm] justified a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in criminal conduct.” Brown
v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51-52 (1979). In cases such as this, courts must adhere to the Fourth
Amendment’s core protections, because “the exclusionary rule is our sole means of ensuring that
police refrain from engaging in the unwarranted harassment or unlawful seizure of anyone—
whether he or she is one of the most affluent or most vulnerable members of our community.”
Foster, 634 F.3d at 249. Because the Commonwealth’s theory rests on speculation or a mere
hunch rather than specific, articulable facts, the seizure was unlawful, and the evidence obtained
as a result must be suppressed.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the judgment of the trial court overruling the motion to
suppress is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
- 25 -Jump to an indexed page (25 of 25)