Outlaw v. People

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that no reasonable suspicion existed when the officer, on patrol in a neighborhood known for drug transactions, didn’t see any drug transaction and couldn’t ascertain the conversation taking place between the suspects
• interpreting “continuous” in 18 § 13-2314.04(T)(3)(a)(iii) “to require that the related predicate acts extend ‘over a 19 substantial period of time,’ i.e., over more than ‘a few weeks or months.’” (quoting H.J. 20 Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 242 (1989)
• “Representative examples of when a seizure occurs include ‘. . . some physical touching of the person of the citizen.’”
• seizure occurred where officers made a show of authority by closely following pedestrian defendant while in an automobile on a sidewalk and procuring a stop by requiring defendant to alter his direction of travel
• “We have rejected the proposition that a 12 history of past criminal activity in an area is itself sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being, has been, or will be committed.”
• “The burden of proof always remains with the prosecution ‘to establish that warrantless conduct on the part of the officers falls within one of the narrowly defined exceptions to the warrant requirement.’” (quoting People v. Jansen , 713 P.2d 907, 911 (Colo. 1986))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).