vrwmiller
Regular Member
imported post
So, after reading several opinions on Terry v. Ohio, it explained that McFadden was lawful in his "frisking" believing that the suspects were armed. However, I've not actually seen anything articulated that would have given McFadden factual reasonable suspicion that the suspects were, indeed, armed. So, on what basis did the courts find that McFadden's "frisk" was lawful?
Was it purely on the position of "officer safety"? If so, I think it's a crock. From what I have read, McFadden had not reason to believe that Terry was armed. He only observed suspicious behavior.
Was the search lawful based on the fact the McFadden felt that the suspicious activity was an indicator of a crime about to happen?
What happens if I work for a retailer who does not employ or contract with an armored truck service to make deposits of large amounts of cash and I send a couple employees to deposit this large sum of cash at the bank and they act in a similar manner as Terry and his co-horts and bring suspsicion upon themselves simply because they see someone whom they feel is suspicious themselves in a retailer along the way?
You know what I'm saying? Am I comparing apples and orange here or would an observing officer have the authority to detain based on their observation of this activity, even though it would be lawful?
ETA: Where is John Terry today? Anybody know? WOuld be interesting to know how things turned out for him, even though we know he was sentenced to prison for a short stint.
So, after reading several opinions on Terry v. Ohio, it explained that McFadden was lawful in his "frisking" believing that the suspects were armed. However, I've not actually seen anything articulated that would have given McFadden factual reasonable suspicion that the suspects were, indeed, armed. So, on what basis did the courts find that McFadden's "frisk" was lawful?
Was it purely on the position of "officer safety"? If so, I think it's a crock. From what I have read, McFadden had not reason to believe that Terry was armed. He only observed suspicious behavior.
Was the search lawful based on the fact the McFadden felt that the suspicious activity was an indicator of a crime about to happen?
What happens if I work for a retailer who does not employ or contract with an armored truck service to make deposits of large amounts of cash and I send a couple employees to deposit this large sum of cash at the bank and they act in a similar manner as Terry and his co-horts and bring suspsicion upon themselves simply because they see someone whom they feel is suspicious themselves in a retailer along the way?
You know what I'm saying? Am I comparing apples and orange here or would an observing officer have the authority to detain based on their observation of this activity, even though it would be lawful?
ETA: Where is John Terry today? Anybody know? WOuld be interesting to know how things turned out for him, even though we know he was sentenced to prison for a short stint.