Huh? Darn, I was lookin' forward to some good reading.
Well maybe our opinions differ.
Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984)
For purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis there are basically three categories of police “contacts” with individuals: “consensual encounters,” “detentions” and arrests. (Wilson v. Superior Court (1983) 34 Cal.3d 777, 784 [195 Cal. Rptr. 671, 670 P.2d 325].) Consensual encounters result in no restraint of an individuals liberty whatsoever, hence, an officer is not required to have an objective justification to stop a citizen.
“
Detentions are seizures...” People v. Verin (1990) 220 Cal. App.3d 551, 269 Cal,Rptr. 573 [No. A046244 Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, May 17, 1990]
“
It is true a temporary detention constitutes a seizure of the person subject to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 [20 L. Ed. 2D 889, 902-903, 88 S.Ct 1868].)
People v. Bremmer (1973), 30 Cal. App. 3D 1058 [Crim. No21752. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division Two. March 7, 1973.] The Fourth Amendment applies to all seizures of the person including those
consuming no more than a minute (United States v. Brignoni-ponce, supra, 422 U.S. At pp. 879-880 [45 L. Ed.2d at pp. 615-616].)
Reasonable suspicion is formed by “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is engaged in
criminal activity.” Usa v Lopez Soto, 205 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2000)
To detain a suspect, a police officer must have reasonable suspicion, or “specific, articulable facts which, together with objective and reasonable inferences, form the basis for suspecting that the particular person detained is
"in criminal activity” USA v. Michael R, 90 F3d 340, (9th Cir. 1996)
...any curtailment of a person's liberty by the police must be supported at least by a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized
is engaged in criminal activity See Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51 (1979) Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S 648, 661 (1979); United States v Brignoni-Ponce, supra ; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146-149 (1972); Terry v. Ohio, supra; Reid v. Georgia, 448 U.S. 438 (1980)
“If the individual is stopped or detained because the officer suspects he may be personally involved in
some criminal activity, his Fourth Amendment rights are implicated and he is entitled to the safeguards of the rules set forth above.” (Id. At p. 895.)[4] The rules to which the court refers are the following. “[1]n order to justify and investigative stop or detention the circumstances known or apparent to the officer must include specific and articulable facts causing him to suspect that (1)
some activity relating to crime has taken place or is occurring or about to occur, and (2)the person he intends to stop or detain is involved in that activity. Not only must he subjectively entertain such a suspicion, but
it must be objectively reasonable for him to do so: the facts must be such as would cause any reasonable police officer in a like position, drawing when appropriate on his training and experience (People v. Superior Court (Keifer), supra. 3 Cal.3d at p. 872), to suspect the same criminal activity and the same involvement by the person in question. The corollary to this rule, of course is that an investigative stop or detention predicated on mere curiosity, rumor, or hunch is unlawful, even though the officer may be acting in complete good faith. (Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. At p. 22...)” (Id, at p. 893.)
People v. Schoennauer (1980) 103 Cal. App. 3D 398 “While a detention of a citizen by a Police Officer based on [9 Cal. 3D 798] a 'mere hunch' is unlawful, if there is a rational suspicion that some activity out of the ordinary is taking place, and some suggestion that the activity is related to crime, a detention is permissible.
People v. Renteria, 2 Cal. App.4th 440 [No. B055019. Second Dist, Div, Six Jan 7, 1992] ...a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity is needed to justify a detention