1. A policeman may ask a citizen polite questions at any time. He may not impede your progress to do so, however. Inquiries have to be very basic and generic - what's your name? where are you going? - and (here's the key) the citizen does not have to answer. You can simply say, "I'm sorry, I don't wish to talk at this time" and go on your merry way. The GA courts have reversed convictions when the police dogged somebody who said he did not want to talk.
2. The "Terry" stop requires "reasonable and articulable suspicion" which as a practical matter does not mean they have to believe you have committed a particular crime, just that you are acting suspicious. Hostility, random or inconsistent or irrational answers to basic questions, sweating or other nervous behavior, etc.
3. Probable cause essentially means they would have sufficient evidence to put before a magistrate to get a warrant. That's the highest standard. Usually probable cause issues revolve around car stops, where the police don't have time to go get a warrant because the car will drive off . . .
Frankly, given the climate in D.C. these days and this guy's behavior (asking pointed questions and taking photos of odd stuff, enough for a citizen to call the cops, plus the belligerence when questioned) it's probably enough for a Terry. If he had been polite instead of evasive and rude when questioned, they probably would have thanked him and walked off. (But if they had wound up finding contraband on him in the pat-down and busting him, I think a GA court would have affirmed the conviction.) When you learn from the article that he was deliberately baiting the police -- then the police WERE right to have an articulable suspicion that something was up. Call it a false report of a crime.
Even knowing I'd never get a straight answer, I pointedly asked whether I had been detained because I was African American or whether I looked Middle Eastern. The officers just smiled wryly.This is the kind of busybody that ties up the police with unnecessary work while inconveniencing honest citizens.A Park Police detective would later say that "a tourist" had reported me to police. As soon as I heard that, I knew which one it was. I recalled that as I began photographing the metal box, a woman pulled out her cell phone and began keeping a not-so-discreet eye on me.
It brings memories of the lady who claimed that three Middle Eastern men were speaking in English about blowing up something in Florida. Finally, it was revealed that they were med students, and all the brouhaha about running a Florida toll was media hype.
People would do well to read Catch 22, a novel which set the standard for reasonable behaviour.
Yossarian wants to be relieved from bombing duty because the missions are driving him crazy.
Unknowingly, he passed the test of "Catch 22": you can't be crazy if you think you are crazy; consequently you must be fit for duty.
Only if you DON'T think you are crazy are you unfit for duty because only a crazy person would respond to the stress of bombing duty by insisting he wasn't crazy.
It is highly unlikely a true terrorist would sass a police officer while on a reconnassince mission.
He/she would have a cover story ready, be very polite and produce any (false) ID requested of him/her.
He/she would certainly not attract attention by asking naive and obvious questions.
Ipso, ergo and therefore said reporter did not fit the profile of a potential terrorist by his very behaviour.
Put yourself in the position of LEO's, Airport Security and Prison Guards.
Would you prefer to deal with someone who is geniunely innocuous and live to collect your pension?
Or would you rather confront someone who is a serious threat capable of killing you overtly or covertly in every encounter?
Most career bureaucrats choose to play it safe than sorry with "busywork" transactions.
Best regards,