An individual's attempt to avoid coming into contact with a police officer does not, without more, justify an investigative detention of the individual. People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1342 (Colo. 1990). The officers informed Padgett that he could not leave until an arrest warrants check was run on him: "And I told them that I would have them on their way if they didn't have any warrants."
¶ 16 We have often stated that, standing alone, a history of past criminal activity in a locality does not justify suspension of the constitutional rights of everyone, or anyone, who may subsequently be in that locality. See, e.g., People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1342 (Colo.1990). In this case, the recent robberies in the area cannot alone justify the stop.
The facts known to the officer, taken together with rational inferences from these facts, must create a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity which justifies an intrusion into the defendant's personal privacy at the time of the stop. People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1341 (Colo. 1990). The officer's unarticulated hunch that a criminal act has occurred, however, is not sufficient to support an investigatory stop.
And we have consistently rejected the notion that "a 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." Outlaw v. People , 17 P.3d 150, 157 (Colo. 2001) (citing People v. Greer , 860 P.2d 528, 531 (Colo. 1993) ; People v. Rahming , 795 P.2d 1338, 1342 (Colo. 1990) ). If "a history of past criminal activity in an area" wasn't enough on its own to establish reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, then it also wouldn't be enough on its own to satisfy the more stringent standard of probable cause.
We noted that an attempt to avoid coming into contact with a police officer does not, without more, justify an investigative detention of the individual. Id. at ¶ 18;see People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1342 (Colo.1990). The majority acknowledges the similarities of this case to Revoal.
In making this determination, the police must have more than an "unparticularized suspicion or hunch" that the suspect is engaged in criminal activity. People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1341 (Colo. 1990) ( quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct 1868). This inquiry is objective and must be viewed in light of "the facts and circumstances known to the officer immediately prior to the stop."
We have rejected the proposition that a 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. See People v. Greer, 860 P.2d 528, 531 (Colo. 1993); People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1343 (Colo. 1990). The fact that Outlaw and his companions were standing in a neighborhood frequented by crime is not in itself a basis for concluding that Outlaw was engaged in criminal conduct.
In making this determination, police officers must have more than an "unparticularized suspicion or hunch" that criminal activity is afoot. See People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1341 (Colo. 1990) (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 27). The inquiry is objective, considering the facts and circumstances known to the officer immediately prior to the stop.
In this case, because the individuals scattered when he approached, Officer Szentmartoni could reasonably believe that they were afraid of being observed (as if they were engaged in illegal activity). Furthermore, although a history of criminal activity in a locality does not justify suspension of the constitutional rights of anyone who may subsequently be at that locality, see People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1341 (Colo. 1990), the fact that an area is reputed to be the site of drug trafficking can provide support for an officer's decision to stop an individual. See Greer, 860 P.2d at 531; Ratcliff, 778 P.2d at 1379.
We do not imply that those individuals are somehow suspicious merely because of how they dress. See People v. Rahming, 795 P.2d 1338, 1342 (Colo. 1990) (holding in case where individuals were dressed as gang members that facts in addition to appearance would be necessary to justify detention). In analyzing the question of when a combination of otherwise innocent circumstances may lead to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the United States Supreme Court has found that a person looking backward over his shoulder, concealing the fact that he was traveling with someone, and carrying no luggage was not enough to raise legitimate suspicions.