BROWN, J.
The officers observed Alter, who was with a juvenile and another female, on the west bank of the river engaged in the act of fishing. The officers proceeded towards Alter in their boat with the intent to “check for their fishing licenses . . . and make sure they were in compliance with State law regarding bag limits and size limits with fish.” Id. at 7. As the officers traveled towards Alter’s location, Officer Neargardner observed Alter “pick up something” and place it in his bag. Id. The bag was a black “duffel bag” and “wasn’t too terribly big in size.” Id.
The officers pulled their boat to the edge of the riverbank, Officer Neargardner exited the boat and asked for Alter’s fishing license, which Alter produced, and Officer Neargardner determined that the license was valid. While Officer Neargardner was still in possession of Alter’s fishing license, he asked Alter “do you have anything in your bag?” Id. at 9. Alter stated that he had fishing gear in the bag. Officer Neargardner then asked Alter “if he would open his bag for [him],” and Alter opened the bag and pulled out a bag of chips and another small bag.
Officer Neargardner noticed a black bag “down in the bottom of that initial bag.” Id. at 10. The smaller bag was approximately twelve inches long, six or seven inches wide, and three or four inches high. Officer Neargardner asked what was inside the smaller bag, and Alter stated “fishing gear.” Id. at 13. At that point Officer Neargardner asked Alter to open the bag, and Alter “inquired as to why” and “said it‟s just fishing gear.” Id. Officer Neargardner believed that Alter was attempting to conceal something because “as cooperative as he had been up to that point” he “became rather hesitant.” Id. Officer Neargardner had a “hunch” that Alter had marijuana in the smaller bag. See id. at 13, 20. Officer Neargardner then told Alter to give him whatever he had “that’s illegal in the bag,” and Alter asked “so what may that be[?]” Id. at 20. Officer Neargardner then told Alter “give me your marijuana.” Id. Alter then pulled out a jar, which contained a green plant material which field tested positive for marijuana, from the smaller bag. Alter was placed under arrest, the bag and its contents were processed, and some blue and white pills were discovered in the bag.
. . . .
Here, the record reveals that two conservation officers approached Alter in their flat bottom boat. Officer Clark, who was operating the boat, pulled up to the edge of the riverbank, and Officer Neargardner exited the boat and secured the boat to a tree, and then both officers approached Alter, the juvenile, and the other female and asked for their fishing license. The record shows that at least Officer Neargardner was in uniform and that his sidearm was visible. Further, after Alter produced his fishing license and Officer Neargardner had determined that the license was valid, Officer Neargardner retained possession of Alter’s fishing license while he asked Alter about the contents of the duffel bag. After he noticed the smaller bag inside the larger duffel bag, Officer Neargardner pressed Alter regarding its contents, first by asking what was inside the bag, then stating to give him whatever was illegal in the bag, and finally ordering Alter to hand over his marijuana. The officers did not merely request and examine Alter’s fishing license; rather, the officers retained Alter’s license, proceeded to request to see the inside and contents of Alter’s larger duffel bag and then the smaller bag, and then told Alter to give them whatever was illegal in the bag and the marijuana.
Based upon our review of the record, the circumstances presented lead us to agree with the trial court that a reasonable person in Alter’s position would not feel free to leave or resist Officer Neargardner’s directives. . . . .
As a result, the officers needed reasonable suspicion that criminal activity had occurred or was about to occur to detain Alter briefly for investigative purposes. . . . .
To the extent the State asserts that the officers were able to point to specific facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, we disagree. When asked at the suppression hearing if he had any indication that Alter had marijuana or whether that was a “stab in the dark,” Officer Neargardner testified: “you would just say a, a gut feeling that an officer gets, you know, a hunch, . . . I can’t explain it.” Id. Officer Neargardner further testified on cross-examination that when initially approaching Alter in the boat he observed Alter possibly place something in “the larger duffel bag” and not in the smaller bag, that he inspected the larger duffel bag, that he never saw any contraband, that at some point in Officer Neargardner’s mind the investigation “ceased to be a conservation investigation . . . for undersize fish or things . . . of that sort” and he “suspected drugs,” and that his reaction when Alter became “rather hesitant” and not “voluntarily reveal[ing] the contents” in the smaller bag was that Alter “was possibly hiding drugs in there.” Id. at 17-18. Reasonable suspicion requires more than mere hunches or unparticularized suspicions, and an officer must be able to point to specific facts giving rise to reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Finger, 799 N.E.2d at 533. Based upon the testimony presented at the suppression hearing, we conclude that the officers lacked reasonable suspicion to further detain Alter for investigatory purposes under the Fourth Amendment at the time Officer Neargardner directed Alter to open the smaller bag and to give him anything illegal or give him the marijuana. The trial court did not err when it granted Alter’s motion to suppress. [Footnote omitted.]
BAKER, J., and KIRSCH, J., concur.