Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 1480
Quote:
|
You are fired. You don't stop people because of a hunch or because they "look suspicious". You stop people because of probable cause.
|
Wrong actually. Terry v Ohio provides us scumbags the reasonable suspicion doctorine where we may stop a person if we believe they have, had or about to commit a crime. Probable cause is needed to make an arrest without a warrant. |
You did not understand what I wrote. No one is saying that the police do not have the right to stop and detain people who are ACTING suspicious. In the Terry vs Ohio case it involved three people repeatedly acting suspicious over a period of many minutes. It was a fair stop.
My comment was directed at the officer's comment about stopping people who just "look suspicious". I doubt that "looking suspicious" passes the requirement that the office "can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed. "
http://www.essortment.com/all/terryohiostop_rorf.htm
Terry vs Ohio does not give law enforcement carte blanche for seizing and searching everyone for everything. Terry vs Ohio was intended to be an exclusion to the findings of Mapp vs Ohio whereas Law Enforcement Officers needed the right to search for weapons only as a precaution to ensure the safety of the officer.
http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases...0v%20ohio.html
The issues of Terry vs Ohio and Mapp vs Ohio are still being debated in legislative arguments.