Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

02-2693 U.S. v. Hendricks

By: dmc-admin//February 24, 2003//

02-2693 U.S. v. Hendricks

By: dmc-admin//February 24, 2003//

Listen to this article

“Although the court in [U.S. v. Packer, 15 F.3d 654 (7th Cir.1994)] held that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion on the facts of that case, the court also stated that ‘the minimum threshold of “specific and articulable facts” sufficient to give rise to reasonable suspicion’ is only ‘marginally’ higher than those presented. Id. at 659. We believe that the facts before the district court in this case satisfy that higher threshold. The caller in Packer was anonymous. In contrast, McDonald identified both her name and occupation, an occupation that not only made her identity readily subject to verification, but that also made clear the reason why she had observed so closely the presence of the white car. Second, the caller in Packer did not indicate how long the car had been parked. In Mr. Hendricks’ case, although McDonald did not provide the dispatcher with a precise length of time, she stated that she observed the car parked behind the Oil Exchange, continued on her paper route, and then observed the car again, still parked behind the closed business establishment. This account necessarily involved some lapse of time. In addition, McDonald reported that the car changed directions during the time that it was parked behind the Oil Exchange. Third, the car in Packer was parked along a residential street. In contrast, the car occupied by Mr. Hendricks and Barnes was parked behind a closed business establishment. Finally, the officers in Packer were not aware of any specific and recent criminal activity in the area, nor did the officers rely on the general level of the neighborhood’s crime rate. In the present case, Officer Swisher testified that he knew there had been several businesses recently burglarized in the area. For these reasons, we believe that Packer does not control our determination in this case.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Moody, J., Ripple, J.

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests