Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence obtained after an investigatory stop; People v Yeoman; “Reasonable suspicion”; People v Champion

Holding that reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaging in drug-related criminal activity supported the investigatory stop, the court reversed the trial court’s order granting his motion to suppress the evidence obtained after the stop and dismissing the charges. He was charged with possession with intent to deliver meth and possession of alprazolam. The stop occurred after his car left the driveway of a house (the Farmdale house). A detective (B) ordered the stop based on what he knew about the Farmdale house, including that there were open cases and investigations about it, and what he knew about defendant before this stop “from former narcotics investigations involving defendant and” meth. B was additionally “aware from his own ‘previous encounters’ with the original suspect that drugs may be sold from the Farmdale house.” He also ordered the stop based on a deputy’s (P) “experience with drug trafficking, which confirmed that what he had observed in the driveway of the Farmdale house was a hand-to-hand transaction.” B and P were both experts in street-level drug trafficking. P saw “a red minivan pull into the driveway of the Farmdale house, followed by a grey sedan that pulled in behind it. [P] later discovered that the person in the red minivan owned the Farmdale house. And through his training and experience, [P] knew that hand-to-hand transactions were likely transpiring when the owner of the house was also there.” He believed the driveway encounter between defendant and the passenger in his car (the sedan) “to be consistent with drug trafficking because he saw the passenger handing money to defendant, defendant counting that money,” and then exiting the driveway and driving off. While he did not “see the passenger take something in return, the surrounding circumstances—an exchange of money for something within a short timeframe in the driveway of a house known as a place where people sold drugs, movement of defendant’s car immediately after the exchange, and the immediate departure of the passenger (i.e., the buyer)—coupled with [B’s] knowledge and experience, support a fair probability that defendant was selling contraband from his vehicle.” Thus, the court concluded that “there was reasonable suspicion to investigate further.” Remanded.