conjunctive test in District of Columbia

2018See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 26 A.3d 745, 753 (D.C. 2011) (listing factors such as time of day, flight, and an informant‘s tip). ―Although each factor is useful in determining whether there were articulable facts justifying the stop, these factors ‗are not elements of a conjunctive test,‘ and no one factor is ‗outcome determinative.‘‖ Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re D.A.D., 763 A.2d 1152 , 1155 (D.C. 2000)).

2018"Although each factor is useful in determining whether there were articulable facts justifying the stop, these factors 'are not elements of a conjunctive test,' and no one factor is 'outcome determinative.' " Umanzor v. United States , 803 A.2d 983 , 993 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re D.A.D. , 763 A.2d 1152 , 1155 (D.C. 2000) ).

2018See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 26 A.3d 745, 753 (D.C. 2011) (listing factors such as time of day, flight, and an informant‘s tip). ―Although each factor is useful in determining whether there were articulable facts justifying the stop, these factors ‗are not elements of a conjunctive test,‘ and no one factor is ‗outcome determinative.‘‖ Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re D.A.D., 763 A.2d 1152 , 1155 (D.C. 2000)).

2018"Although each factor is useful in determining whether there were articulable facts justifying the stop, these factors 'are not elements of a conjunctive test,' and no one factor is 'outcome determinative.' " Umanzor v. United States , 803 A.2d 983 , 993 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re D.A.D. , 763 A.2d 1152 , 1155 (D.C. 2000) ).

2018In other words, ―we must consider ‗the totality of the circumstances—the whole picture.‘‖ Sokolow, 490 U.S. at 8 (quoting Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417 ). ―[C]ourts are properly wary of sustaining seizures on the basis of anonymous tips, and require a substantial measure of corroboration of information anonymously provided.‖ Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1015 (D.C. 1991).

2018In other words, "we must consider 'the totality of the circumstances-the whole picture.' " Sokolow , 490 U.S. at 8 , 109 S.Ct. 1581 (quoting Cortez , 449 U.S. at 417 , 101 S.Ct. 690 ). "[C]ourts are properly wary of sustaining seizures on the basis of anonymous tips, and require a substantial measure of corroboration of information anonymously provided." Brown v. United States , 590 A.2d 1008 , 1015 (D.C. 1991).

2018See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 26 A.3d 745, 753 (D.C. 2011) (listing factors such as time of day, flight, and an informant‘s tip). ―Although each factor is useful in determining whether there were articulable facts justifying the stop, these factors ‗are not elements of a conjunctive test,‘ and no one factor is ‗outcome determinative.‘‖ Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re D.A.D., 763 A.2d 1152 , 1155 (D.C. 2000)).

2018See, e.g., Bennett v. United States, 26 A.3d 745, 753 (D.C. 2011) (listing factors such as time of day, flight, and an informant‘s tip). ―Although each factor is useful in determining whether there were articulable facts justifying the stop, these factors ‗are not elements of a conjunctive test,‘ and no one factor is ‗outcome determinative.‘‖ Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (quoting In re D.A.D., 763 A.2d 1152 , 1155 (D.C. 2000)).

2017Besides spatial and temporal proximity, there are a number of other 18 important factors to consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances: the number of people about in the area, multiple other stops, ―the time of day, flight, the high crime nature of the location, furtive hand movements, an informant‘s tip, a person‘s reaction to questioning, a report of criminal activity or gunshots, and the viewing of an object or bulge indicating a weapon.‖ Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (citing Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1995)); see also Hamp

2017Besides spatial and temporal proximity, there are a number of other important factors to consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances: the number of people about in the area, multiple other stops, “the time of day, flight, 'the high crime nature of the location, furtive hand movements, an informant’s tip, a person’s reaction to questioning, a report of criminal activity or gunshots, and the viewing of an object or bulge indicating a weapon.” Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (citing Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1995)); see also Hample

2026Heller notably did refer to “dangerous or unusual weapons” elsewhere in the opinion, but only in describing one of the government’s arguments that it would go on to reject. 554 U.S. at 623. 31 Still, even if we assume that Justice Scalia uncharacteristically and without warning used a “hendiadys” in a vital portion of his watershed Heller opinion to mean something other than what he said, 12 “dangerous and unusual” cannot possibly mean what the District asserts.

2017Besides spatial and temporal proximity, there are a number of other 18 important factors to consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances: the number of people about in the area, multiple other stops, ―the time of day, flight, the high crime nature of the location, furtive hand movements, an informant‘s tip, a person‘s reaction to questioning, a report of criminal activity or gunshots, and the viewing of an object or bulge indicating a weapon.‖ Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (citing Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1995)); see also Hamp

2017Besides spatial and temporal proximity, there are a number of other important factors to consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances: the number of people about in the area, multiple other stops, “the time of day, flight, 'the high crime nature of the location, furtive hand movements, an informant’s tip, a person’s reaction to questioning, a report of criminal activity or gunshots, and the viewing of an object or bulge indicating a weapon.” Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (citing Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1995)); see also Hample

2017Besides spatial and temporal proximity, there are a number of other 18 important factors to consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances: the number of people about in the area, multiple other stops, ―the time of day, flight, the high crime nature of the location, furtive hand movements, an informant‘s tip, a person‘s reaction to questioning, a report of criminal activity or gunshots, and the viewing of an object or bulge indicating a weapon.‖ Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (citing Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1995)); see also Hamp

2017Besides spatial and temporal proximity, there are a number of other important factors to consider when looking at the totality of the circumstances: the number of people about in the area, multiple other stops, “the time of day, flight, 'the high crime nature of the location, furtive hand movements, an informant’s tip, a person’s reaction to questioning, a report of criminal activity or gunshots, and the viewing of an object or bulge indicating a weapon.” Umanzor v. United States, 803 A.2d 983, 993 (D.C. 2002) (citing Anderson v. United States, 658 A.2d 1036, 1038 (D.C. 1995)); see also Hample

1977United States v. Powell, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 337 , 449 F.2d 994, 999 (1971) (Bazelon, C.

1977United States v. Powell, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 332, 337 , 449 F.2d 994, 999 (1971) (Bazelon, C.