Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Traffic stop; Articulable & reasonable suspicion; People v Moorman; People v Pagano

Holding that the trial court erred in ruling that reasonable suspicion existed for the traffic stop, the court reversed its denial of defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized as a result of the stop, and remanded. The prosecution “only offered body camera footage from the officers at the traffic stop to prove reasonable suspicion. Even though the officer stated in the body camera footage that he heard yelling, no yelling was audible in the footage. Further, the video does not show any traffic violations or other signs of criminal activity when the officer initiated the stop, and the officer did not state—on video or through testimony—what potential violation formed the basis for the stop.” The court noted that yelling in a vehicle, by itself, “is not a crime. Assuming that defendant’s yelling was the officer’s reason for initiating the traffic stop, that activity alone without any other indication of criminal activity is insufficient for reasonable suspicion; rather, it is akin to a ‘hunch’ that something might be amiss.” An officer is required to have “‘a particularized and objective basis for the suspicion of criminal activity,’ which is more than just a ‘hunch.’” Further, once defendant in this case “explained the reasoning for the yelling, the record does not reflect the reason why the officer requested identification and continued the stop.” The court held that because the prosecution failed to “meet its burden for proving that there was an exception to the warrant requirement, the evidence collected from that stop is inadmissible.”