Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by mademyself1984


No, he probably asked instead of demanded, because he who fit the description, wasn't being a pain in the officer's ass. If he had denied the search, the officer would have eventually done it anyways, because the officer HAS that right. And no, to perform a Terry Stop, (consider when you attend a sporting event, or concert, and officers pat down those entering, Terry Stop) an officer simply needs to approach you and ask you if he may search you. Again, if at which point you decline, he now has probable cause to utilize his police discretion, to perform a warrantless search. Again. Open a book.And I "resort" to name calling, when the person being called the name "fits the description". And yeah, I got "high and mighty" because of my Bachelors? Not exactly but I suppose it would make sense that is your assumption. I'm simply pointing out that I have been educated on my rights as a civilian as well as the rights of officers of the law, and I know the difference between a violation of my rights and an officer doing his job. Clearly, you aren't understanding the difference between the two. Which leads me to my question, exactly what schooling, training, education; do you have on the matter?

edit on 5/28/2011 by mademyself1984 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/28/2011 by mademyself1984 because: confusing language

edit on 5/28/2011 by mademyself1984 because: additionally

Going to a concert in a private venue does not constitute a Terry Stop. It does not need to be justified as such, as it is, again, a PRIVATE venue.

Again, the specific language used to define a Terry Stop is that the officer must have specific and articulable facts. The description in the OP was not that. All we know is that the suspect had long hair. This is not specific in any way.

I would have asked him for more information. If he had a better description than that, I would have gladly obliged. If not, I would have been on my way.

From the Terry v Ohio case:

"In this case, for example, the Ohio Court of Appeals stated that 'we must be careful to distinguish that the "frisk" authorized herein includes only a "frisk" for a dangerous weapon. It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. Such a search is controlled by the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, and probable cause is essential.' " (392 U.S. 1, at 16, Fn 12, quoting State v. Terry, 5 Ohio App. 2d 122, at 130)

and a bit more for you, from Justice Byron White

"There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him.
Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation
." (392 U.S. 1, at 34).

You can name call and dangle your bachelors all you want, you can try and make this personal. I recognize immaturity when I see it. I wont take the bait.