Which case is known for supporting stops based on BOLOs, flyers, or bulletins?

Which case is known for supporting stops based on BOLOs, flyers, or bulletins?

• A. Hensley
• B. Freeman v. State
• C. McAnnis v. State
• D. City of Miami v. Crouch

Answer: (C)

Stops can be justified when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person matches a description in an official alert, such as a BOLO, flyer, or bulletin. A BOLO is a Be On the Look Out notice that describes a suspect, vehicle, or crime and is circulated to help officers recognize who they’re looking for. If the person encountered fits that description and the surrounding facts—where, when, and how the person was behaving—also point to involvement in the reported crime, a brief investigative stop is reasonable. In McAnnis v. State, the court recognized that information disseminated through these official alerts can provide the basis for a stop, as long as there are articulable facts and the totality of circumstances supports reasonable suspicion. The key is linking the alert description to observable details in the encounter, not treating the alert as automatic proof. The stop should be narrowly tailored and limited to determining whether the person is the subject of the alert and gathering additional facts. Other cases address related issues but do not establish this specific practice of stopping based on BOLOs, flyers, or bulletins in the same way.

Stops can be justified when an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person matches a description in an official alert, such as a BOLO, flyer, or bulletin. A BOLO is a Be On the Look Out notice that describes a suspect, vehicle, or crime and is circulated to help officers recognize who they’re looking for. If the person encountered fits that description and the surrounding facts—where, when, and how the person was behaving—also point to involvement in the reported crime, a brief investigative stop is reasonable. In McAnnis v. State, the court recognized that information disseminated through these official alerts can provide the basis for a stop, as long as there are articulable facts and the totality of circumstances supports reasonable suspicion. The key is linking the alert description to observable details in the encounter, not treating the alert as automatic proof. The stop should be narrowly tailored and limited to determining whether the person is the subject of the alert and gathering additional facts. Other cases address related issues but do not establish this specific practice of stopping based on BOLOs, flyers, or bulletins in the same way.