LEO 229 wrote:
apjonas wrote:
Well, how about Terry itself?
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
SNIP What exactly is your question? This is a traffic stop that deals with disarming a motorist during the stop.
Let's shift over to a lesser known ruling... Michigan v Long where the officer can search the passenger area of the vehicle to check for weapons.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_1032_ZS.html
"Nor did they act unreasonably in
taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile.
The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injure them."
Forum members should read the entire court opinion linked above. The Supreme Court said, in pertinent part:
Our past cases indicate, then, that protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger, that roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and that danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. These principles compel our conclusion that the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the officer in believing that the suspect is dangerousAND the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons.[suP] [n14][/suP] See Terry, 392 [p1050] U.S. at 21. (all emphasis added)
NOTE: The link in the quoted post above takes you to a syllabus of the opinion. Not the opinion itself. At the top of the syllabus page there are links to the actual opinion itself in html and pdf. I think the protective search part of the opinion begins in section III.
It seems the quoted poster pulled his quote from the syllabus, which to my knowledge carries no legal weight.
Also, the poster's quote omits important information--the sentence in the syllabus immediately preceding the quote. I'll include it here with the first sentence of thequote:
The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. (emphasis added)
I consider that presenting the Court's opinion in a way that misrepresents their views undermines them. Its one thing to criticize them when they get it wrong. Its something else to give people the impression that they got it wrong when they actually got it fairly right. On the exact point under discussion in this exact case, I believe they have a fairly good handle on the subject, balancing rights with protecting police.
