Replies

" That can't be legal, can it? "

Sure is. If the police have "probable cause" based on your actions they can detain you and question you.

Police, like most of us, don't like people who make their job more difficult. This reporter was being uncooperative. They did not know what they were dealing with. Challenging the police has its own risks. Washington Post reporters, who make sure "race" is prominent in every incident, are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. Most are "Diversity hires".

"Sure is. If the police have "probable cause" based on your actions they can detain you and question you."

Not exactly. They have to have "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that you have committed, or are about to commit, a crime. Last time I looked, asking questions about shiny things in trees and taking pictures was not a crime.

Now I realize that we are under an "orange alert" and all, but if the cops wanted to stop and frisk this guy, then they should have waited until they had a R & A suspicion. Why not just keep an eye on him for awhile, and then step in an start asking questions? Why attempt to escalate things and intimidate people by calling for backup? Why didn't they just answer this citizen's questions?

This reporter had every right to be what some of you are calling "uncooperative." People have the right to go about their business unmolested by the police or anyone else. Where are we headed as a society if we all are now forced to justify why we are doing what we are doing just because some guy in a uniform asks?

I'll probably get flamed for standing up for our rights to be left alone, but it wouldn't be the first time...asbestos panties on!

Constitutional Law Center > U.S. Constitution > Fourth Amendment > Annotations

the standard for stops for investigative purposes evolved into one of ''reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.'' That test permits some stops and questioning without probable cause in order to allow police officers to explore the foun dations of their suspicions