Quote:
have also heard this from others, but when i read the actual terry decision, the standard seems to be RAS of a crime.
so, if there is RAS of a crime, it seems (from my reading of terry) that there is no requirement that the officer beliieve you to be armed and dangerous.
and, on the other hand, it seems that even if an LEO thinks you are armed and dangerous, if there is no RAS of a crime, he cannot do a terry stop.
is my understanding not correct?
|
My understanding of Terry is that there are two distinct parts here: the stop and the frisk. The LEO needs RAS to make the initial stop (totality of facts and circumstances that would indicate to a reasonable officer that some type of general criminal activity has been or is about to be committed), and then, in dealing with the guy, some indication that the guy might be armed so that a frisk can be made for officer safety. I do not believe that RAS for the original stop automatically gives the LEO the right to frisk-- they might look at other things like suspect's demeanor, heavy pockets, etc.
My non-lawyer opinion.