Whether facts that do not individually show or permit an inference of a connection between a person and a crime that had been committed nearby may, in the aggregate, provide a police officer with reasonable suspicion justifying a limited stop and search of that person

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This dispute turns on the proper interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a jurisdiction where citizens are entitled by law to fire weapons on their property, a divided Ohio Supreme Court has held that law enforcement officers may act on a “hunch” and conduct a Terry stop of any individual found within the general vicinity of where a single gunshot was heard. The Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion raises three questions for this Court’s review: 1. Whether facts that do not individually show or permit an inference of a connection between a person and a crime that had been committed nearby may, in the aggregate, provide a police officer with reasonable suspicion justifying a limited stop and search of that person. 2. Whether at the time of the founding of our nation, it would have been considered reasonable to stop one among a number of persons present near the scene of a suspected crime and conduct even a limited search without any indication of who had committed the crime. 3. Whether the foundational requirement of reasonableness within the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an assessment of whether society views as reasonable the manner in which a police officer conducts a limited stop and search. i