Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendant
defendanthearingtrialtestimonywill

Related Cases

People v. Bolander, 23 Cal.App.4th 155, 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 365
View Case »
U.S. v. Chiarizio, 388 F.Supp. 858
View Case »
U.S. v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657
View Case »
Donastorg v. Government of Virgin Islands ex rel. Departments and Agencies and its Com’rs and, 2003 WL 21653354, 45 V.I. 259
View Case »
United States v. Esparza, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2020 WL 1696084
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

State v. Bard, 445 N.J.Super. 145, 136 A.3d 938

Facts

On July 29, 2013, state troopers were performing community policing in a high-crime area when they encountered defendant Richard Bard. Bard displayed nervous behavior, ignored the troopers' greeting, and moved his hand to his back pocket when asked to show his hands. The troopers, concerned for their safety, conducted a stop and frisk, discovering marijuana in Bard's pocket, which led to his arrest.

These facts are taken from the suppression hearing record. New Jersey State Trooper Chris Paligmo, one of two arresting officers, was the sole testifying witness. On July 29, 2013, Trooper Paligmo and his partner, Trooper Silipino, were assigned to perform 'community policing,' in full uniform, at Tips Trailer Park.

Issue

Did the state troopers have reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop and frisk of defendant Richard Bard?

DEFENDANT'S UNWILLINGNESS TO TALK TO THE POLICE DURING THE FIELD INQUIRY COUPLED WITH HIS PUTTING HIS HAND IN HIS BACK POCKET DID NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE SUSPICION TO SEIZE AND FRISK HIM.

Rule

An investigatory stop is justified if an officer has particularized suspicion based on objective observations that the person stopped has been or is about to engage in criminal wrongdoing. The totality of circumstances must be considered to determine if the officer's actions were reasonable.

A police officer may conduct an investigatory stop of a person if that officer has 'particularized suspicion based upon an objective observation that the person stopped has been or is about to engage in criminal wrongdoing.'

Analysis

The court analyzed the totality of circumstances surrounding the encounter, including the high-crime nature of the area, the time of night, Bard's nervous behavior, and his refusal to comply with the troopers' request to show his hands. The troopers' training and experience informed their belief that Bard posed a potential threat, justifying the stop and frisk under the Terry standard.

We conclude the trial judge properly considered the totality of the circumstances when determining the reasonableness of the troopers' reaction.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the troopers had reasonable suspicion to conduct the stop and frisk, and thus the evidence obtained was admissible.

Accordingly, we affirm.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case because the court found that the troopers had reasonable suspicion to justify the investigatory stop and frisk based on the totality of circumstances.

The judge issued a comprehensive written opinion. He found Trooper Paligmo's testimony credible and analyzed the police-citizen encounter step by step.

You must be