>
...This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer’s hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk,” or simply a “Terry frisk”....
>
Yes, and like govt prosecution, how many cases brought up about it get the ‘rubber gavel’ (another 98% ‘success’ rate)? We’ve ALL seen how well the justice system\wall-of-blue protects their own.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...”. What is ‘unreasonable’? Cop on every block stopping? Ever other?
>
...if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous.”...
>
The rub, IMO, is that last part...In our once Con. Republic, we were ALL under the presumption of being armed; and thus ‘presently dangerous’.
This gets into the ‘thought crimes’ area and I, for one, don’t like it.
“S\he was *thinking* of robbing the place”. I’d presume those that commit crime don’t casually WALK down the street\side-walk....they RUN, drive fast, etc.
And no gumshoe is going to ask nicely to frisk someone CURRENTLY committing a crime.
As usual, the ivy league have educated themselves to stupidity.
If you want to torture yourself with such thoughts, then that is your right.