State of Arizona v. Johnathon Bernard Serna

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that a frisk is only permissible if officers reasonably suspect both that criminal activity is afoot and that the suspect is armed and dangerous
• holding that, absent consent, a frisk of a suspect’s person is permissible only if the officer “reasonably sus- peet[s] both that criminal activity is afoot and that the suspect is armed and dangerous”
• holding an initial encounter in which two officers called to the defendant from their patrol car and the defendant voluntarily answered questions consensual
• “[P]olice interactions with members of the public are inherently fluid, and what begins as a consensual encounter can evolve into a seizure that prompts Fourth Amendment scrutiny.”
• “In a state . . . that freely permits citizens to carry weapons, both visible and concealed, the mere presence of a gun cannot provide reasonable and articulable suspicion that the gun carrier is presently dangerous.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).