Where an officer on patrol in a high crime area observed the defendant adjust his pants, but she did not see a bulge or detect nervousness and there had been no immediate report of crime in the area, the evidence failed to support a finding that the officer articulated a reasonable suspicion for the seizure, so the search violated the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, but the trial court’s failure to suppress was harmless error because the evidence would have been cumulative to the defendant’s trial testimony.
Judgment is affirmed.
State v. Norfolk (MLW No. 62980/Case No. ED95468 – 13 pages) (Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Draper III, J.) Appealed from circuit court, St. Louis City, McCullin, J. (Timothy J. Forneris for appellant) (Shaun J. Mackelprang for respondent).