Officer Detail: Robert S. Sprinkle

"On the evening of October 21, 2001, Officers Chuck Howell (Howell) and Robert Sprinkle (Sprinkle) of the Richmond City Police Department... as members of the drugs and weapons unit... arrived at the Creighton Court apartment complex at approximately 8:30 p.m. as part of an effort to surprise 'anyone who was dealing drugs' in the neighborhood, which was 'known for its numerous drug activities.'

They parked at the southern end of the complex and were walking north when they noticed a group of individuals in a 'cut' between two apartment buildings...

Howell [said that he] suspected that a drug transaction 'was going to occur or had occurred.'

However, neither officer saw any drug activities or exchanges.

Howell and Sprinkle continued walking toward the group. At that point, defendant 'looked in [the officers'] direction' and immediately 'took off running' in the opposite direction...

Howell yelled at defendant to stop, and he 'got on the ground.'

Sprinkle handcuffed defendant and did a 'pat down' search for weapons.

No weapons or drugs were found at that time.

Howell did not tell defendant that he was under arrest, and Sprinkle told defendant 'you're not under arrest, [you're] under investigative detention until we can figure out . . . what's going on...'

Sprinkle arrested him for trespassing and in a search incident to the arrest found drugs and a cellular telephone.

The trial court ruled:

'I understand why the officers did what they did. But . . . [u]nder the evidence that has been presented to this Court, I do not find the facts to rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has occurred or even that a crime is about to occur, and I grant the motion to suppress."

The Commonwealth appeals this ruling.

"..[T]he district court, in the Suppression Order of November 29, 2001, concluded that “[g]iven the totality of the circumstances known to the officers in this case [Robert S. Sprinkle and Eric Flick], there was not reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, sufficient to conduct an investigatory stop of the defendant.'

,.[T]he question of “[w]hether an officer has such reasonable suspicion to justify a stop-and-frisk is subject to de novo review...

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, law enforcement officers may properly conduct a brief investigative stop of an individual when they possess reasonable suspicion, grounded in specific articulable facts, that he has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity.

On appeal, the Government asserts that the events occurring in connection with the surveillance operation of July 12, 2001, were sufficient to create a reasonable suspicion... The Government maintains that... the district court erred... [W]e agree."