In the recent Court of Appeals case: In re D.M. (11-FS—1125) decided on July 10, 2014, the Court reversed the lower court conviction for second- degree burglary, felony destruction of property, and second-degree theft based on 4th amendment violations.
Essentially DM and other juveniles were indentified breaking into a property and removing items from the home. DM was seen at the scene by an eyewitness and a look out was broadcasted. Subsequently DM was located and held by the detective pending a show up by the eyewitness.
The Court justified in reversing the convictions and holding that there was an unreasonable seizure of the defendant pending the show up expounded: “[C]onsistent with the Fourth Amendment, the police may briefly detain an individual for investigative purposes, even if they lack the probable cause to arrest, so long as the officers have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the individual has committed or is about to commit a crime.”
The two-prong test implemented to determine the legitimacy of the police action is: (1) “whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and (2) whether the actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified interference in the first place.”
The determining facts in conducting the two-prong test and in evaluating the constitutionality of the search and seizure would be the: (1) the length of the detention, (2) the place of detention, (3) the use of handcuffs or force to restrain the suspect, and (4) the investigative methods employed.
Thus for the “investigative detention” to be valid and prudent, it must be temporary, and necessary to effectuate the purpose of the stop. That is, the length of detention given all surrounding circumstances must be limited, and only to confirm or to dispel reasonable suspicions and the police must diligently pursue their investigation.
The Court did not find the length of the detention (some 75 minutes) unnecessarily long in duration however the Court found it to be intrusive and not justified under the circumstances, the second prong of the constitutionally test.
The Court did not find the length of the detention (some 75 minutes) unnecessarily long in duration however the Court found it to be intrusive and not justified under the circumstances, the second prong of the constitutionally test.
That is: “[i]n addition to examining the length of the detention, a plurality of the Supreme Court has opined that courts should examine whether “the investigative methods employed [were] the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer’s suspicion in a short period of time.”
Pickett the eye witness was contacted after holding DM to attend a show up – as Pickett was at work, there was a delay with the show up and the testimony at trial was unclear as to whether the delay was necessary or warranted.
Specifically, the only testimony offered at the motions hearing relevant to D.M.’s seventy-five minute detention was a single statement by Pickett and a single statement by Howard, the detective.
Thus the record was insufficient to conclude that it is more likely than not that the police acted diligently and that any delay was necessary to complete their investigation. The Court ultimately held “the government failed to meet its burden to prove the show-up identification was not the product of an unlawful seizure, and the trial court therefore erred in denying D.M.s motion to suppress and his adjudication of delinquency must therefore be reversed.”
This case is significant as it demonstrates that the 4th amendment challenges will be closely scrutinized on appeal and that such motions must be filed and litigated fully at the trial level when warranted and to preserve the record for appeal.