Establishing Reasonable Suspicion in ShotSpotter-Initiated Investigatory Stops: State of Wisconsin v. Nimmer (2022 WI 47)

Introduction

State of Wisconsin v. Avan Rondell Nimmer is a landmark case adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on June 23, 2022. The case centers on the constitutionality of a police stop and frisk initiated based on a ShotSpotter report indicating gunfire in real-time. The primary legal issue addressed was whether the officers had reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment to justify their investigative actions, leading to the discovery of a concealed firearm on Nimmer. This commentary dissects the court's reasoning, the precedents it relied upon, and the broader implications for law enforcement practices involving ShotSpotter technology.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, thereby upholding Nimmer's conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm. The majority opinion held that the officers possessed reasonable suspicion, under the Fourth Amendment, based on the totality of the circumstances encompassing a near real-time ShotSpotter report, the officers' swift response, Nimmer's proximity to the reported location, his solitary presence, and his furtive movements upon noticing the officers. Consequently, the investigative stop and subsequent frisk were deemed constitutional.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references several precedents to substantiate its decision. Notably:

• TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968): Establishing the standard for "Terry stops," allowing brief detentions based on reasonable suspicion.
• UNITED STATES v. CORTEZ, 449 U.S. 411 (1981): Emphasizing the "totality of the circumstances" in determining reasonable suspicion.
• Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393 (2014): Discussing the reliability of tips in justifying investigative stops.
• State v. Genous, 2021 WI 50: Affirming that reasonable suspicion must be based on specific, articulable facts.
• United States v. Jones, 1 F.4th 50 (D.C. Cir. 2021) and United States v. Rickmon, 952 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2020): Addressing the significance of response time and proximity in ShotSpotter cases.

These cases collectively influenced the court's approach in assessing the reasonableness of the investigative stop, particularly in the context of modern surveillance technologies like ShotSpotter.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning hinged on the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. It underscored that while a ShotSpotter report provides a reliable indication of gunfire, it does not independently establish reasonable suspicion. However, when coupled with the officers' immediate response, Nimmer's close proximity to the reported location, his solitary presence, and his suspicious movements ("blading" and "digging around his left side"), the totality of these factors collectively furnished reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a Terry stop and frisk.

The court criticized the Court of Appeals for its "divide-and-conquer" analysis, arguing that it failed to consider the interconnectedness of the facts. Instead, by evaluating the circumstances holistically, the court affirmed that the officers acted within constitutional bounds.

Impact

This judgment solidifies the legal framework surrounding the use of ShotSpotter technology in investigatory stops. It delineates that while ShotSpotter itself is a valuable tool, its efficacy in establishing reasonable suspicion is amplified when contextualized with officers' observations and actions upon arriving at the scene. Future cases will likely reference State v. Nimmer when determining the legitimacy of stops initiated based on technological alerts, especially emphasizing the importance of the "totality of the circumstances."

Complex Concepts Simplified

ShotSpotter

ShotSpotter is an acoustic sensor-based gunshot detection system. It detects, locates, and analyzes gunfire in real-time, alerting police to the precise location of the incident. While it is reliable in identifying gunshots, it does not provide information about the shooter or other individuals present.

Reasonable Suspicion

A legal standard under the Fourth Amendment that allows police officers to briefly detain and investigate individuals if they have specific and articulable facts suggesting that a person is involved in criminal activity. It is a lower standard than probable cause.

Terry Stop

Originating from TERRY v. OHIO, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. It permits limited searches (frisks) for weapons if the officer believes the individual is armed and poses a safety risk.

Conclusion

The State of Wisconsin v. Nimmer decision reinforces the legitimacy of investigative stops based on technological tools like ShotSpotter when supplemented by observable suspicious behavior. By adhering to the "totality of the circumstances" approach, the court ensures that such stops are constitutionally sound, balancing public safety interests with individual rights. This case sets a pivotal precedent for law enforcement practices, particularly in urban settings where rapid technological responses to gunfire can significantly aid in criminal investigations while respecting constitutional safeguards.