State of Ohio v. Jaonte D. Hairston

The Supreme Court of Ohio presents: Under Advisement, Ohio Supreme Court Cases on Demand

Download a PDF of the Student Resource Guide.

In the Case of: State of Ohio v. Jaonte D. Hairston, Case no. 2017-1505.

Two Columbus police officers heard several gunshots while responding to a call on the southeast side of the city. After driving in the direction they thought the shots came from, they encountered Jaonte Hairston, a 23-year-old Black man, as he walked into a crosswalk talking on his cell phone. He was the only person in the area, and the officers approached him with guns drawn. After placing his hands behind his back, Hairston notified the officers that he had a loaded pistol in his front jacket pocket. Hairston was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. The Ohio Supreme Court is asked to decide if the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and search Hairston, and thereby charge him with the concealed-carry offense.

The title of this case series, "Under Advisement," refers to reserving judgement until the justices can give careful consideration of all the information presented, as well as applicable caselaw, statutes, and the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.

The courts oversee and administer the law. They resolve disputes under the law and strive to apply the law in a fair and impartial manner. As in other states, Ohio is served by separate state and federal court systems organized into trial courts, intermediate courts of appeals, and a Supreme Court in each system. State courts primarily deal with cases arising under state law, and federal courts primarily deal with cases arising under federal law.

STATE COURTS

Ohio Trial Courts

In Ohio, most cases begin and are resolved in trial courts, which are the workhorses of the state’s judicial system. Ohio has several kinds of trial courts and each has venue and jurisdiction over cases. Simply stated, venue is the geographical location where a case is heard. Jurisdiction is the power and authority to hear and decide certain types of cases. Ohio’s trial courts include common pleas courts, municipal and county courts, and mayor’s courts.

• Common pleas courts have countywide venue and jurisdiction to decide all levels of civil and criminal cases. The common pleas court is Ohio’s court of general jurisdiction, which means that it has the authority to hear almost any civil or criminal matter.The most serious civil or criminal cases must be heard in common pleas court. Each of the state’s 88 counties has a common pleas court.
• Municipal and county courts have more limited jurisdiction than common pleas courts, and the authority to only decide less serious civil and criminal cases.
• Mayor’s courts do not have civil jurisdiction and only have limited authority to hear minor criminal matters that occur within a city or village. Mayor’s courts are not courts of record because they are not required to keep a record of their proceedings.

Ohio Courts of Appeals

The goal of every judicial system is to achieve complete and equal justice with every trial, but trial courts sometimes make mistakes or parties may disagree about the outcome of a particular case. This is why the courts of appeals were established. Ohio’s courts of appeals review questions brought from common pleas courts, municipal courts, and county courts.

Only a final judgment or order can be appealed, and appeals generally must be on questions of law and not the facts of a case. Appeals court judges generally do not hear new testimony. They review transcripts from the lower court’s hearings to determine if the law was interpreted and applied correctly. The party appealing the lower court’s decision is the appellant, and files a written argument explaining why the trial court erred. The party that won the case in the trial court is the appellee, and also may file a written brief, but is not required to do so. The court then may hold oral arguments, at which time the judges can ask questions about the case before making a decision. Ohio’s appeals court system is divided into 12 districts.

The number of judges in each district varies based on population, but each district has a minimum of four appellate judges. A panel of three of the district’s judges hear cases challenging decisions made by a lower trial court located within its district. Although many cases end with a decision by a district court of appeals, such courts are not the last resort; rather they are an intermediate step from the trial courts to the Supreme Court of Ohio.

To qualify for election, court of appeals judges must be licensed attorneys with at least six years’ experience. Once elected, they serve six-year terms.

The Supreme Court of Ohio

The Supreme Court of Ohio’s main purpose is to serve as a court of appeals and Ohio’s court of last resort. The Court is empowered to review final judgments and orders of lower courts; to affirm, reverse, remand (send back to a lower court), or modify judgments. Appeals to the Supreme Court generally are from the 12 district courts of appeals, rather than from the trial courts. The Court is required to hear some types of cases (cases involving the death penalty, some appeals from state agencies, cases involving state constitutional issues, and others), but most of its jurisdiction is discretionary and it selects cases of great importance or public interest to resolve.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has original (trial) jurisdiction for certain special remedies that permit a person to file an action in the Supreme Court. These extraordinary remedies include writs of habeas corpus (involving the release of persons allegedly unlawfully imprisoned or committed), writs of mandamus and procedendo (ordering a public official to do a required act), writs of prohibition (ordering a lower court to cease an unlawful act), and writs of quo warranto (against a person or corporation for usurpation, misuse, or abuse of public office or corporate office or franchise).

The Supreme Court of Ohio also has other important duties. These duties include prescribing rules of procedure for and providing general oversight of all lower courts, and overseeing the practice of law by attorneys.

The Supreme Court of Ohio consists of a chief justice and six justices. To qualify for election, candidates must be licensed attorneys with at least six years’ experience. Once elected, they serve sixyear terms. The Supreme Court of Ohio is located in downtown Columbus.

OHIO JUDICIAL STRUCTURE

SUPREME COURT
CHIEF JUSTICE AND SIX JUSTICES

Court of last resort on state constitutional questions, and questions of public or great general interest; appeals from the Public Utilities Commission, all death sentences; original jurisdiction in select cases.

COURT OF APPEALS
TWELVE DISTRICTS, THREE-JUDGE PANELS

Appellate review of judgments of common pleas, municipal, and county courts; appeals from Board of Tax Appeals; original jurisdiction in select cases.

MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY COURTS

Misdemeanor offenses; traffic cases; civil actions up to $15,000.

COURT OF CLAIMS
JUDGES ASSIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE

All suits against the state for personal injury, property damage, contract, and wrongful death; compensation for victims of crime. Three-judge panels upon request.

MAYOR'S COURTS

Not courts of record. Violations of local ordinances and state traffic laws. Matters can be reheard in municipal or county courts.

KEY TOPICS FROM THIS CASE

• What are the rights of citizens when approached by police officers?
• What is a Terry stop?
• When is it considered reasonable for a police officer to stop and search a potential suspect?
• What is the significance of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
• What is the role of amicus briefs?

Glossary of Legal Terms

Admissible: Allowed to be considered as evidence by a judge or jury.

Amicus curiae: Latin, meaning “friend of the court.” A person or group that is not a party in a case, but who asks a court or is requested by a court to file a brief because of a special interest in the subject of the case.

Appeal: A request made by a party that has lost on one or more issues for a higher court to review the decision for correctness.

Appellant: The party who appeals a court’s decision and seeks to have the decision overturned.

Appellee: The party who opposes an appeal and seeks to have an earlier court decision affirmed.

Brief: A written statement submitted to a court that explains legal and factual positions.

Capital offense: A crime punishable by death.

Community control: A type of sentence that allows a convicted person to stay out of prison, but under control of the court for a specific amount of time.

Concurring opinion: A vote in favor of the court’s judgment, but for different reasons than stated in the majority opinion.

Defendant: In a civil case, someone against whom a lawsuit is filed. In a criminal case, someone accused of a crime.

Dispositive: A decisive fact, motion, or point of law when answering a question of law.

Dissenting opinion: An opinion disagreeing with the judgment reached by the majority of the court.

Due process: A party’s right to notice and to be heard. In criminal law, the constitutional guarantee that a defendant will receive a fair and impartial trial.

Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents, according to specific court rules, and used to prove a case to the judge or jury.

Exclusionary rule: Doctrine stating evidence obtained in violation of a criminal defendant’s rights is not admissible at trial.

Felony: A serious crime, punishable by at least six months in prison.

Grand jury: A group of citizens called for jury service to listen to evidence of criminal allegations presented by prosecutors to determine whether there is probable cause to believe someone has committed a crime.

Improvidently allowed: The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss a case it had previously accepted because the case lacks a substantial constitutional question, a question of public or great general interest, or otherwise does not need to be decided by the court.

Inadmissible: Not able to be allowed or considered in a legal case.

Indictment: The grand jury’s formal statement that a person is alleged to have committed a specific crime or crimes.

Justice: One of the seven members of the Supreme Court of Ohio.

Majority opinion: An opinion joined by more than half of those judges considering a case, which becomes the opinion of the court.

Motion to suppress: A formal request to the court to exclude certain evidence at a criminal trial because the evidence was obtained illegally.

Misdemeanor: A crime punishable by imprisonment (in prison or in jail) of one year or less.

Municipal court: Trial court created by the Ohio General Assembly that has the authority to conduct preliminary hearings in felony cases and has jurisdiction over traffic and non-traffic misdemeanors.

Opinion: A judge’s written explanation of the decision of the court in a case.

Oral argument: An opportunity for lawyers to argue their positions and answer questions from the judges or justices who will decide the case being appealed.

Party: In court proceedings, one who files a civil or criminal case, one against whom a case is filed, or one with a direct interest in a case.

Plea of no contest: This is not an admission of guilt, but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment or complaint. The admission cannot be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceedings.

Precedent: A decision in an earlier case – with facts and legal issues similar to a dispute currently before a court – that should be followed unless there is good reason to depart from the earlier ruling.

Presentment: An informal statement in writing, by the grand jury, representing to the court that a public offense has been committed which is triable in the county, and that there is reasonable ground for believing that a particular individual named or described therein has committed it.

Probable cause: Enough facts to allow law enforcement to arrest someone, or search someone or something.

Prosecutor: One who represents the government in cases against criminal defendants.

Reasonable suspicion: An objectively justifiable suspicion based on specific facts or circumstances and justifying stopping and sometimes searching a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time.

Suppression of evidence: Court ruling where evidence is excluded from the trial because it was obtained illegally.

Terry stop: In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity, but short of probable cause to arrest.

Trial: A formal court proceeding in which a judge or a jury decides disputed facts and determines guilt or liability based upon the evidence presented.

Witness: A person called on during a trial to give testimony before the judge or jury.

• The officers asked if Hairston heard the gunshots and he replied that he had.
• The officers told Hairston to place his hands behind his back and asked whether he had any weapons. He said he did and nodded to his front jacket pocket.
• The officers found a loaded pistol and arrested Hairston for carrying a concealed weapon.
• There were no shell casings found nearby, nor any other indication that Hairston was the person who fired the shots.

“Officer Moore testified that he heard gunshots that sounded as if they were coming from the west. They headed in the general direction of where they though the shots might have come from. They drove through a residential neighborhood heading south on Falcon Bridge Drive and passed approximately twelve houses before turning onto Paladim Road. They drove on Paladim, and continued past the intersection of Argonne Court, then continued west past the Gentry Lane intersection and continued driving the length of Paladim Road until it changed into Reynard Road. At that point they jogged onto Paladim Place and headed west to Whitlow Road where they observed the defendant crossing the intersection at a crosswalk. He was just walking normally through a residential area where there were "a lot of houses" and talking on his cell phone at the time. This observation of the defendant occurred about four-tenths of a mile from where the officers were when they heard the shots.”

- The public defender’s memorandum opposing jurisdiction

• Hairston wants to suppress, or keep the trial judge and/or jury from considering, the evidence from the search.
• A “motion to suppress” evidence is a formal request made to the court to exclude certain evidence at a criminal trial because the evidence was obtained illegally.
• Hairston argues that the officers’ search of him was unreasonable. Therefore, the evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 14 of the Ohio Constitution.
• The trial court denies the motion and allows the evidence to be considered.
• Hairston enters a plea of no contest. The court finds him guilty of carrying a concealed weapon and imposes a sentence of one year of community control under basic supervision.

• Ohio has 12 district courts of appeals, which review and consider arguments in cases from trial courts in their region of the state.
• Trial court decisions made in Franklin County may be appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals, located in Columbus.
• The Tenth District reverses the trial court’s ruling, concluding that the police lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and search Hairston. The prosecutors can again file charges in the common pleas court against Hairston. However, they cannot use the evidence found during the search of Hairston.

• Parties that lose at the appellate court level can ask the Ohio Supreme Court to review their case.
• Four of the seven justices on the Ohio Supreme Court must vote in favor of accepting the case.
• The Supreme Court agrees to hear the prosecutor’s appeal.
• Because the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, the Tenth District’s order for the case to return to trial court is put on hold.

ORAL ARGUMENT SCHEDULED

When the Supreme Court accepts a case, the parties submit written arguments, then the Court sets a date for oral argument.

• Prior to appearing before the Supreme Court, the parties are expected to submit merit briefs. These are written arguments explaining why each side thinks it should win the case.
• An attorney for each party typically presents arguments in front of the justices of the Supreme Court and answers questions from the justices.
• Other organizations interested in how the court might rule can file “amicus” briefs. These also are known as friend-of-the-court briefs.
• The Supreme Court accepted the prosecutor’s appeal to decide:
  • If, when responding to very recent gunfire in
    a high-crime area, it is reasonable for police
    officers to have their weapons drawn and to
    briefly detain the only individual seen in the
    area.

STATUTES EXPLAINED

The following statute is relevant to this case:

• Hairston is not being charged with a crime related to the gunshots that led to his stop. He was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, which is in violation of R.C. 2923.12 (A). This statute reads that “no person shall knowingly carry or have, concealed on the person’s person or concealed ready at hand, any of the following:
  1. A deadly weapon other than a handgun;
  2. A handgun other than a dangerous ordnance; or
  3. A dangerous ordnance.”
• There are exceptions to this statute that involve having a concealed-handgun license, which Hairston did not have. Hairston’s case deals with whether the evidence that proves he was in violation of the statute was illegallyobtained.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

• A police officer asks and is given consent to search
• A police officer, or other citizens, are in immediate danger
• Evidence may be destroyed

HAIRSTON'S ARGUMENTS

Terry Stops Exception Does not Apply

• The exception to the Fourth Amendment for investigatory stops is made on the authority of Terry v. Ohio, a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court opinion. In Terry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the police may stop a person only if the officer has a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent.
• Hairston argues that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop and search him.

Search Was Unreasonable

• Police cannot detain a person at gunpoint to investigate gunshots when they have no description of a suspect, do not know the direction a suspect was heading, and have no other particularized information connecting the person to the sound of gunshots.
• The precedent set in Terry v. Ohio is based on an objective interpretation of the facts of a situation, not on the police officers’ personal interpretation about whether a person committed some wrongdoing.
• Police must be able to clearly identify the reasons for stopping and searching an individual. In this situation they did not have reasonable suspicion to do so.
• Hairston’s behavior was not suspicious, he did not flee when the officers approached him, and he answered the officers’ questions.
• Hairston’s conduct, when viewed objectively, provided no evidence that he was engaged in criminal conduct and, therefore, he should not have been stopped and searched.

STATE'S ARGUMENTS

Factors Viewed Together Justify Search

• Courts must look at the totality of circumstances when reviewing whether stopping and searching an individual is legal. In reversing the trial court’s decision, the appeals court did not examine all the circumstances together, but instead separated and then considered each factor individually.
• The gunshots occurred in a high-crime area, and the defendant was the only person the officers saw shortly after hearing the gunshots. Given these circumstances, the officers are permitted to draw their weapons to both protect themselves and to find out whether a suspicious person is carrying a weapon.
• Taken together, these factors created a reasonable suspicion to search Hairston, thereby qualifying as an exception to the Fourth Amendment and making the search legal.

FRIEND-OF-THE-COURT-BRIEFS

Amicus curiae briefs were filed by organizations with a high level of interest in the outcome of the case.

• The Supreme Court allows these groups to submit written briefs, but generally doesn’t allow them to present oral arguments.
• In some cases, a party named in a lawsuit will agree to split oral argument time with one of the amicus groups supporting the party’s position.

• The following groups filed a joint brief supporting Hairston’s position:
  • Friedman and Gilbert, a Cleveland law firm
  • Hamilton County Public Defender
  • Montgomery County Public Defender
  • National Lawyers Guild
  • Ohio Justice and Policy Center
  • Ohio Public Defender’s Office
• The Fraternal Order of Police Ohio, Capital City Lodge No. 9 filed an amicus brief supporting the prosecutor.

ATTORNEYS WILL REFER TO PREVIOUS FEDERAL AND OHIO COURT DECISIONS

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions:

Terry v. Ohio (1968)
On Oct. 31, 1963, a plainclothes policeman observed what he believed to be three men preparing to rob a store in downtown Cleveland, Ohio. He stopped and searched the three men and found weapons on two of them, John Terry and Richard Chilton. Terry was tried and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and received a three-year prison term. Terry appealed the decision, claiming that the evidence used to convict him was obtained through an illegal search of his person. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case in December 1967. In an 8-1 decision in June 1968, the Court held that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and the evidence could be used in court against Terry.

Listen for references to the following cases as well. Attorneys on both sides will use both the majority and dissenting opinions from these cases as precedent for what makes a search reasonable. Several of these cases apply the precedent set in the Terry v. Ohio ruling.

Reid v. Georgia (1980):
While at an Atlanta airport, a federal narcotics agent observed an individual with a shoulder bag glancing at another man with a shoulder bag and no other luggage. The agent asked each of them for their identification and after they consented to a search of their persons and bags, Reid tried to run away and left his bag, which contained cocaine. Reid was indicted for possession of cocaine, but submitted a motion to suppress the introduction of cocaine as evidence on the grounds that the seizure was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Reid and ruled that the agent could not have reasonably suspected Reid of criminal activity based on the observed circumstances.

Brinegar v. United States (1949):
A federal agent who had previously arrested Brinegar for illegally transporting liquor into Oklahoma saw him in his car, which appeared to be heavily loaded, heading west in Oklahoma. The agent pulled him over and, upon interrogation, Brinegar admitted that he had 12 cases of liquor in his car. He was charged with transporting intoxicating liquor into Oklahoma where it was illegal. He filed a motion to suppress the use of the evidence against him, arguing that his vehicle was searched without a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the facts of the case were sufficient to show probable cause for the search and Brinegar was convicted.

Bumper v. North Carolina (1968):
Wayne Bumper was investigated for rape and felonious assault and, during the investigation, police officers searched his grandmother’s home. She had given consent to the search only after the officers told her they had a warrant, which they did not actually have. The officers found a rifle in the home that later was introduced as evidence at Bumper’s trial. The Supreme Court held that for a search to be lawful under the Fourth Amendment, the consent must be freely and voluntarily given. Therefore, the rifle could not be introduced as evidence.

State v. Bobo (1988):
Officers noticed two men in a car in an area of Cleveland known for drug activity. After circling the block, the officers returned and saw only one man, Marvin T. Bobo, in the vehicle and it appeared he had just hidden something under the passenger seat. The officers searched the vehicle, found a gun, and charged Bobo with carrying a concealed weapon. Bobo filed a motion to suppress the weapon from evidence at trial. The Ohio Supreme Court held that police officers “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant” the intrusion, and in this case there was reasonable suspicion to warrant the search of the vehicle.

State v. Andrews (1991):
A police officer stopped Christopher A. Andrews, who the officer thought was running away from a police cruiser in a high-drug-activity area of Dayton. After patting Andrews down, the officer found a loaded handgun and arrested him. Andrews filed a motion to suppress the evidence at trial. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the officer had a reasonable suspicion to justify his search of Andrews. In this case, the officer was “able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”

CONSTITUTIONAL SEARCH OF A MAN WALKING NEAR WHERE GUNSHOTS WERE HEARD

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the police search of a man walking and talking on his cell phone near where gunshots were recently fired was lawful. The handgun found during the search can be used as evidence in court.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court denied Hairston’s claim that the search was unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice R. Patrick DeWine wrote that the reasonable suspicion standard to stop and search Hairston was met when considering the “cumulative facts” of the situation.

The two justices who dissented agreed with Hairston’s position that the police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the search. Both dissenting opinions expressed concern about the lack of specific, particularized information linking Hairston to the crime.

Read the full opinion.

The trial court determined that the police officers had reasonable suspicion to stop Hairston. The court applied the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio dealing with situations when police officers can stop and investigate someone who may have committed a crime. Hairston appealed the trial court’s decision allowing the evidence to the Tenth District Court of Appeals. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. According to the appellate court, the sound of gunshots only indicates that “someone, somewhere, had shot a gun,” and, therefore, the police officers did not have reasonable suspicion to stop Hairston in the first place.

The Franklin County Prosecutor appealed the appellate court’s decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Officer Had Good Reason to Make Stop

The Court majority explained that the Terry v. Ohio decision allows a police officer to briefly stop someone “when the officer has a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal behavior has occurred or is imminent.” Additionally, a police officer may search for concealed weapons if they are “justified in believing” the person is armed and dangerous.

Justice DeWine wrote that reasonable suspicion must be based on the totality of circumstances as “viewed through the eyes of the reasonable and prudent police officers on the scene.” The determination of reasonable suspicion does not deal with “hard certainties, but with probabilities.” The opinion went on to note the importance that:

• Officer Moore was the one who heard the gunshots and they sounded nearby.
• He had personal experience with criminal activity at night in the area where he stopped Hairston.
• He had arrested other people in that area at night for carrying illegal weapons and for other crimes.
• The stop occurred close in time to the gunshots, and Hairston was the only person in the area from which they came.

All of these facts, when considered together, created reasonable suspicion for the search the Court ruled. According to the majority, the police officers “did exactly what one would expect reasonable and prudent police officers to do in their situation.” The majority agreed that the police officers did not have to ignore Hairston’s presence in the area and it was “not necessary for them to attempt to speak to him without taking precautions for their own safety.”

Concurring Opinion Agrees Proximity to Gunshots Important

In his concurring opinion, Justice Michael P. Donnelly agreed that a suspect’s proximity to the crime area at the time of the incident was important. Those factors justified the reasonable suspicion of the police officers. However, he disagreed with the majority’s opinion that the time of night and the fact that it was a high-crime area were relevant to the decision to search Hairston.

Justice Donnelly wrote that this case was a “close call” and that another court could have reasonably come to a different conclusion. He noted that although the Tenth District’s conclusion about the

facts was reasonable, an appellate court cannot take the place of the trial court in determining the facts of the case.

According to his concurrence, Justice Donnelly did not think there was a new standard of law to be determined by the Ohio Supreme Court in a ruling in this case. Although he agreed that the Tenth District’s decision was incorrect, he concluded that the best outcome in the case would have been to dismiss the appeal as not needing to be decided by the Supreme Court in the first place.

Dissent States that Decision Erodes Constitutional Protection

In her dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor wrote the majority decision “erodes the constitutional standards established in Terry.” She concluded that this decision allows police to stop any person in a high-crime area even without specific facts that point to that person’s involvement in a criminal activity.

The chief justice noted that Officer Moore’s testimony was different than the arrest form he completed. This difference highlights his lack of specific information about where the gunshots came from. She explained that the decision in Terry requires that a search be based on more than a police officer’s hunch that criminal activity was afoot. The dissent also noted that Officer Moore began the search of Hairston before asking him if he had a gun.

The chief justice further stated that in order to stop someone based on the recent sound of gunshots, the shooter must not have time to flee or hide. In other similar cases where searches were justified, the gunshots were fired within a few blocks of where they were heard. In Hairston’s case, the gunshots were at least half a mile away and the police officers thought they came from near the high school, not the elementary school where Hairston was walking.

“Officer Moore did not have a specific idea of where the shots came from, and he merely stopped the first person he encountered while driving in that direction,” the chief justice wrote. Even in cases where gunshots occurred nearby and a search was justified, the arresting officers had additional evidence that raised their suspicion about the person they searched. Although Hairston was the first and only person the officers saw, he was walking in a residential part of the city where hundreds of people live. Hairston did not do anything to make him stand out from anyone else in the area at the time.

The chief justice also stated that the shooter easily could have walked inside a house or hidden somewhere nearby. Therefore, the fact that Hairston was the only person walking down the street “does not meet the reasonable-suspicion standard.”

Separate Dissent Maintains that the Majority and Trial Court Ignored Key Factor

In her separate dissent, Justice Melody J. Stewart wrote the majority and the trial court did not figure out whether the police officers had a particularized suspicion that Hairston committed a crime. The police officers stopped Hairston while he was walking across the street from an area where they guessed the gunshots came from. These facts did not give the police officers enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search Hairston. She further noted that the majority decision does not follow the U.S. Supreme Court precedent explaining the particularity requirement for search and seizure. In this case, the police officers had a general suspicion that Hairston committed the crime, but that did not justify the search.

Justice Stewart also noted that Officer Moore did not testify that Hairston was the only person he saw. Instead, he testified that he did not “recall” seeing anyone else in the area. This is important because the inability to confirm that Hairston was the only person in the area takes away from the argument that there was a particularized suspicion of Hairston in this case.

Justice Stewart agreed that courts allow officers to use their experience and training to assess whether they suspect someone of criminal activity. However, Officer Moore’s testimony did not explain how his experience and training helped him determine the origin of the gunshots heard nearly half a mile away. He also did not explain why it was particularly suspicious for Hairston to be walking across a street talking on his phone.