swinokur
Activist Member
I don't think case law would support that but IANAL either.
But the 2 elements I listed will would they not?
But the 2 elements I listed will would they not?
Last edited:
What is it that you feel case law would not support? It would help if you would quote the specific bits that you are responding to.I don't think case law would support that but IANAL either.
swinokur said:But the 2 elements I listed will would they not?
I agree but what I meant was that while I agree a traffic stop is and of itself not reason for a pat down or stop and frisk the other 2 things I listed would be.
"RAS" of a crime isn't enough. You just cited the correct bits, but it appears that you are not understanding it fully.Whre in Terry does the Metric has to be armed and dangerous present itself? It says reasonable suspicion of being armed and dangerous. I thought RAS of a crime was enough. I thought the reason for the pat down is to find weapons even if none are eveident.
swinokur said:RAS of the the crime situations metric:
if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."
That's pretty easy for LE to testify to a Judge whether it is a fact or not.
Yet your posts show that you do not.I understand that. It has 2 parts.
swinokur said:1. RAS
2. Reasonable suspicion of the suspect being armed.
I guess my point is this certainly favors LE in a he said he said situation
Well the smell of Marijuana or erratic behavior could make the officer think the suspect MIGHT be armed and dangerous. How much PC is required? Kind of subjective isn't it?
It appears to be subjective. Your example is hyperbole.
Is there case law on my examples? I'd bet there might be.
I agree but what I meant was that while I agree a traffic stop is and of itself not reason for a pat down or stop and frisk the other 2 things I listed would be.
It's not that I refuse to answer. I don't know what the actual answer is. Case law would clarify the issue, rather than opinions.
How so? You keep failing to explain the logic you use to come to that conclusion.
What is it about the two items you mention that leads you to believe that there is:
1) RAS,
and
2) reasonable suspicion that the subject is Armed, AND Dangerous?
I see nothing in 'smell of marijuana' and 'acting strangely' that would lead to either RAS or the 'armed and dangerous' suspicion. How do YOU get to that?
So, the reality is that you do NOT know that 'smell of marijuana' and/or 'subject was acting in a strange fashion'would lead to a Terry frisk? Then why do you keep on insisting that it does?
Drug users aren't sometimes armed? Or folks acting strangely?