Donnelly

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent. The APD’s Terry stop of Donnelly was not justified by an objective manifestation that Donnelly was engaged, or soon to be engaged, in criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) (stating that “the detaining officers must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity”).

What did the officers know? From the dispatcher’s conversation with Ruth Sanchez, the totality of the circumstances known to them was that the school requested an APD officer “immediately” and that school security had identified Charley Donnelly, who they believed had a gun, in a ear that was circling school grounds by driving out onto Abbott Road and coming back onto school property. Dispatch also knew that no gun had been seen 1 and that, despite Sanchez’s suggestion, there was no outstanding warrant for Donnelly’s arrest. Dispatch might also have sensed from the tenor of the conversation that school officials were seriously concerned over Donnelly’s activity.

We, of course, know from the record certain facts of which Sanchez did not inform Dispatch: that…

MEMORANDUM

We have jurisdiction over the government’s interlocutory appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3731 and we reverse the district court’s ruling suppressing evidence because it held that the stop and search was illegal.

I.

The propriety of a Terry stop is reviewed de novo. United States v. Fuentes, 105 F.3d 487, 490 (9th Cir.1997). Although it is a close case, we conclude that the Anchorage Police Department (“APD”) had reasonable suspicion to stop and search Donnelly. 2 Pursuant to the Fourth Amendment, “[a]n investigatory stop must be justified by some objective manifestation that the person stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity.” United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). To meet this standard, the officer must point to “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.” Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 . In the *620 case of a police radio dispatch, even though the officer who relies on the dispatch need not have knowledge of the basis of the report, the dispatcher must…