Taff v. State, 562 S.W.3d 877

Background

Taff was charged with two drug offenses after officers stopped him while he was walking on Highway 270 and found contraband during a search.
Dispatch received reports from a reliable caller (Lee) that Taff had acted "suspiciously" at a store, had gone in and out, and was carrying a gun; the caller did not report any threats, theft, brandishing, or unlawful use of the gun.
Officer Davis pulled his patrol vehicle behind Taff, activated blue lights, and approached; Davis conceded he observed no traffic or criminal violations before initiating the stop.
Upon seeing Taff turn and place his hand near his waistband, Davis drew his weapon; officers subsequently searched Taff and seized evidence used to charge him.
Taff moved to suppress, arguing the blue-light stop was a seizure unsupported by reasonable suspicion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 and the Fourth Amendment; the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals held the activation of blue lights effected a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion, found the officers lacked such suspicion given the record, reversed the denial of the suppression motion, and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Taff)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether initiating blue lights constituted a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion	The blue lights stopped Taff and he submitted, so it was a seizure; no reasonable suspicion existed because "suspicious" behavior alone is insufficient	The stop was justified to investigate suspicious conduct reported by a reliable caller and to determine lawfulness of carrying a weapon	Court held activation of blue lights was a seizure and officers lacked reasonable suspicion; seizure was illegal
Whether mere possession of a handgun can supply reasonable suspicion of criminal activity	Mere possession is lawful absent unlawful intent; no facts showed intent to unlawfully employ the gun	Caller’s report that Taff carried a gun and acted suspiciously justified inquiry	Court held mere possession without indicators of unlawful intent did not supply reasonable suspicion
Whether officers had reasonable suspicion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 to detain Taff	No articulable facts tying Taff to a crime; two-mile walk from store suggested departure, not criminal intent	Officer’s experience with the reliable caller and observed behavior supported reasonable suspicion to verify identity and conduct	Court held totality of circumstances did not produce reasonable suspicion under Rule 3.1
Remedy for evidence obtained after an illegal seizure	Evidence was fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed	Evidence should be admissible because officers acted reasonably to investigate reports	Court held evidence should have been suppressed and reversed/remanded for new trial

Key Cases Cited

Hammons v. State, 327 Ark. 520, 940 S.W.2d 424 (Ark. 1997) (using blue lights to stop effects a seizure)
McFadden v. State, 327 Ark. 16, 938 S.W.2d 797 (Ark. 1997) (blue-light stops constitute seizures)
Meeks v. State, 479 S.W.3d 559 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (totality-of-circumstances review of suppression rulings and blue-light seizure law)
Stevens v. State, 208 S.W.3d 843 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (blue lights effect a seizure)
Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (probable cause for traffic stop standard)
Monsivais v. United States, 848 F.3d 353 (5th Cir. 2017) (suspicion must be articulable; mere "suspicious" conduct insufficient)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (submission to show of authority and seizure analysis)
Casey v. State, 483 S.W.3d 327 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (reasonable suspicion need not rule out innocent conduct)
Mosley v. State, 370 S.W.3d 273 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009) (trained-officer inferences can supply reasonable suspicion when supported by articulable facts)
Williams v. State, 217 S.W.3d 817 (Ark. 2005) (rule of lenity in construing criminal statutes)
Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit-of-the-poisonous-tree doctrine)