5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.
(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate.
Ahh, the vaunted gold standard of jurisprudence! /sarcasm
This ruling is hazier than Baghdad television reception and has more holes in it than a Taliban Toyota.
Thanks for posting it.
Overall, I think that in the case of this particular stop, the cops did not meet any of the current thresholds for 'reasonable suspicion' to search the guy. Asking questions, taking pictures, and having a notpad and pen do not fit IMO. The cops are perfectly within their right to ask him anything they want, and he was perfectly within his rights to question the basis for them to ask him questions. Most of the time people just give them whatever information they want, because they feel (reasonably IMO) that they'll be much further harassed if they don't. I wish people did this more often, (question back) as it would likely lead to police to not think of us all as cowed sheep by default.