Replies

Why? Okay, here:

[extract from court document slightly digested]
On April 19, 2002 members of Arizona’s gang taskforce were on patrol in Tucson near a neighborhood associated with the Crips gang. At approximately 9 p.m., the officers pulled over an automobile after a license plate check revealed that the vehicle’s registration had been suspended for an insurance-related violation
At the time of the stop, the vehicle had three occupants—the driver, a front-seat passenger, and a passenger in the back seat, Lemon Montrea Johnson.
Johnson was wearing clothing, including a blue bandana, considered consistent with Crips membership.
Johnson provided his name and date of birth but said he had no identification with him. He volunteered that he was from Eloy, Arizona, a place known to be home to a Crips gang. Johnson further said he had served time in prison for burglary and had been out for about a year.

Sounds like reasonable suspicion: In a place of gang activity, someone dressed like a gang member, carrying a police scanner, and admitting to being a convicted criminal recently out of prison.

Sounds like reasonable suspicion

It may well be reasonable suspicion, but to me, I fail to see how reasonable suspicion isn't a general warrant. I'm sure that there are some cases that find a policeman didn't have reasonable suspicion to search, but I don't recall ever seeing one, and for good reason: the policeman always says something really generic and either untestable or applicable to most everyone: "he looked nervous/it was a crime-ridden neighborhood/he was wearing blue/red / he looked like a criminal," etc.

It's pretty weak. Incidentally, I think a lot of this crappy fourth amendment law comes from the exclusionary rule. It makes judges uncomfortable to know that people who are guilty will go free because of the exclusion of evidence, so there are huge holes cut into the fourth amendment to justify the admittance of illegally obtained evidence. Get rid of the exclusionary rule and I suspect that you'll find the 4th amendment will have more teeth.

At the time of the stop, the vehicle had three occupants—the driver, a front-seat passenger, and a passenger in the back seat, Lemon Montrea Johnson.

Just being named "Lemon Montrea Johnson" is cause for a good frisking, IMHO. ;-)

In a place of gang activity, someone dressed like a gang member, carrying a police scanner, and admitting to being a convicted criminal recently out of prison.

Apparently very soon, all of us will fit that description, unless we are buzz-cut, wearing BDU's and driving a government vehicle - or maybe not.