Search & Seizure – Stop of defendant was supported by reasonable suspicion

Where information provided by a 911 caller was sufficiently reliable to provide the requisite reasonable suspicion to support a lawful Terry stop, and officers who responded to the 911 call had the requisite reasonable suspicion the defendant was engaged, had been engaged or was about to engage in criminal wrongdoing, his motion to suppress was denied.

Background

Travon Hines seeks to suppress a concealed firearm and any statements made during and after his arrest. The issues before the court are: (1) whether the information obtained from a tipster via a 911 call was sufficiently reliable to provide the requisite reasonable suspicion to support a lawful Terry stop and (2) whether the police officers who responded to the 911 call had the requisite reasonable suspicion that Hines was engaged, had been engaged or was about to engage in criminal wrongdoing when they detained Hines.

Analysis

An officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop, without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment, when an officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. Reasonable suspicion is an objective standard, yet it requires the court to consider the totality of the circumstances, including what the officers knew prior to conducting the search. Accordingly, a court must consider, “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.”

In this case, the caller not only provided her name and contact information; she also reported that she personally observed Hines retrieve what appeared to be a concealed firearm, described the firearm in detail and provided additional information relating to Hines’s appearance and behavior. Accordingly, this case is more comparable to one where the Supreme Court noted that the informant “came forward personally to give information that was immediately verifiable at the scene.” Therefore, the court finds that the verifiable information provided by the caller – namely, Hines’ location and appearance – was sufficiently reliable to warrant a response by law enforcement.

Based on the reliability of the tip received via the 911 call, the court finds that the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Hines had a concealed weapon when they approached him. According to the tipster, Hines had previously retrieved a firearm from beneath his clothes, held it in the open and then “put it back,” so it was reasonable for the officers to believe Hines had a concealed weapon when they approached him and saw that Hines no longer had a visible firearm.

The court is confronted with two related issues. The first is whether a reasonable suspicion that an individual has a concealed weapon, without more, is sufficient to justify an investigatory stop. The second is, if it is not sufficient, whether there were additional facts present here such that, considering the totality of the circumstances, the officers nonetheless had reasonable, articulable suspicion that Hines had engaged in, was engaged in, or was about to engage in criminal activity.

The court first holds that carrying a concealed weapon is presumptively illegal in Virginia. Because here the officers had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Hines was carrying a concealed weapon, the court further finds that the officers were justified – without more – to conduct an investigatory stop of Hines. Moreover, even absent the presumptive illegality of carrying a concealed weapon, the officers appear to have had a reasonable, articulable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Hines based on the totality of the circumstances.

According to the 911 caller, Hines was observed in a public shopping center parking lot displaying “an M9 kind of gun” that he had been “hiding in his pants” while “acting all weird” and “walking around and looking around in circles.” He also “made a yell” while the 911 caller and her mother walked by and subsequently “pull[ed] out a gun” after the caller parked her car, although it is unclear how far Hines was from the caller when he did so.

Pursuant to Virginia Code § 18.2-282, holding a firearm in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured is illegal. Certainly the 911 caller was apprehensive enough to report the event, which resulted in the immediate dispatchment of law enforcement to the scene. In light of the above, this court finds that the officers likely possessed a reasonable suspicion that Hines was engaged in criminal wrongdoing and, thus, that an investigatory stop was warranted under the Fourth Amendment.

Defendant’s motion to suppress denied.

Commonwealth v. Hines, Case No. CR25-1203, March 27, 2026. Norfolk City Circuit Court (Lannetti). VLW 026-8-013. 12 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-8-013
Virginia Lawyers Weekly