Waters v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed Waters's convictions, holding that the officers had reasonable and articulable suspicion to stop him based on the totality of the circumstances. Because Waters did not object below, the Court reviewed for plain error and found none in the absence of a sua sponte suppression ruling. The officers' observations in a high-crime area, Waters's evasive movements, repeated waistband checks, and conduct suggesting he was armed supported the stop.