Davis v. State

I dissent because I believe that the police officer had a reasonable suspicion to stop and question appellant, and that the officer could reasonably believe, on the basis of specific and articulable facts, that appellant was armed and dangerous.

I agree with Judge Bird’s criticism of the majority’s analysis of the initial stop. Although the majority opinion gives lip service to the totality-of-the-circumstances test, it is quite apparent that they are in fact engaging in precisely the sort of “divide and conquer” analysis forbidden by United States v. Arvizu, 122 S. Ct. 744 (2002). Certainly,…