Cohen Law Offices

Get The Help You Need

Call Us Today!

Supreme Court Holds that an Investigatory Stop Was Reasonable

websitebuilder • November 28, 2023

In State v. Nimmer, the Supreme reversed the court of appeals and held that an officer reasonably made an investigatory stop when there was a suspicion that the defendant was involved in criminal activity. Accordingly, it was permissible to allow a handgun seized during that stop to be introduced into evidence, and the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. 

 

Two Wisconsin police officers were using a technology called ShotSpotter to identify gunfire. They arrived on the scene within a minute after the program detected the use of firearms. The only person on the scene was Nimmer, and he moved away when he saw the police. When the officer approached, Nimmer was "blading" his left hand and digging around on his left side. The officers believed that Nimmer was trying to conceal a weapon, so they frisked him and found a gun. Because Nimmer was a convicted felon, he was charged with and convicted of felony possession of a handgun.

 

The appeals court had reversed the circuit court, which had denied Nimmer’s motion to suppress the evidence. The appeals court found that mere presence in an area where there was criminal activity was not reasonable suspicion on its own.

Nimmer's Stop Was a Permissible "Terry Stop," and the Evidence Was Admissible

The Supreme Court analyzed what is permissible as a “Terry Stop.” Officers are allowed to make a limited investigatory stop if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Here, the Court looked at the entire picture that the officers were processing when they made the stop. The Court specifically noted that the reasonable suspicion standard was lower than probable cause. The Court specifically looked for evidence that would show that the officer had more than a mere hunch. 

 

The Court seemingly did not have much difficulty in reaching the conclusion that officers had reasonable suspicion. The officers arrived on the scene, practically in real-time, and they found Nimmer at the scene. He had made furtive movements that were consistent with someone hiding a weapon. In addition, the Court found that the fact that the shooting was in a residential area added an extra element of exigency. The key fact was that the officers arrived on the scene within a minute of the ShotSpotter report. The Court did not accept Nimmer’s defense that he could have been any random pedestrian out for a walk. 

 

Generally, a defendant can move to suppress evidence that was illegally seized. If the court finds that a defendant’s rights were violated, they may suppress both that evidence and the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Here, the Court held that the search was permissible, and they admitted the handgun that was seized.

Contact an Eau Claire Criminal Defense Attorney

The potential for illegally seized evidence to be used against you is one of the many reasons why you need a criminal defense attorney. If you have been arrested, reach out to the tenacious attorneys at the Cohen Law Offices today. You can call us at (715) 514-5051 or send us a message online to discuss your case.

Share by: