Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
I learned Terry vs Ohio in 1973. As far as I know it is still in every police training curriculum.
It really doesn't matter if anyone believes that the Supremes' got it wrong or not, it is a case supported police action. It has been reaffirmed a number of times and you have to ask yourself why, if it is not legal why has it not been challenged again.
Additionally, it is not "suspicion" it is "reasonable suspicion" which is a higher standard. If an officer cannot articulate the reason for this type of stop then it is not legal.
If you change the questions to Reasonable suspicion" then your answer can be found in case law. Of course there is no difference between race, creed, sexual preference or national origin in the law.
By the way, I am just trying to answer your questions. I can tell you in 28 years I only remember using it once. At least in retrospect I think I used it.
I was working late at night in a remote unlit area. I was checking a ocean beach facility. When I walked up to the pavilion area to check the locks my flashlight hit a guy standing in the dark leaning up against the building in a trench coat (it was 90 degrees). I started a conversation with him and he stated he was waiting for his brother. OK, not a problem. I asked him what he was driving so I could be on the outlook for him. He said a submarine. I asked him to put his hands against the wall. He said again.
It was illegal to spend the night in the area, he was wearing a trench coat, he seemed very confused, the area was not frequented by submarines. Terry Stop for my safety?
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
It really doesn't matter if anyone believes that the Supremes' got it wrong or not, it is a case supported police action. It has been reaffirmed a number of times and you have to ask yourself why, if it is not legal why has it not been challenged again.
Additionally, it is not "suspicion" it is "reasonable suspicion" which is a higher standard. If an officer cannot articulate the reason for this type of stop then it is not legal.
If you change the questions to Reasonable suspicion" then your answer can be found in case law. Of course there is no difference between race, creed, sexual preference or national origin in the law.
By the way, I am just trying to answer your questions. I can tell you in 28 years I only remember using it once. At least in retrospect I think I used it.
I was working late at night in a remote unlit area. I was checking a ocean beach facility. When I walked up to the pavilion area to check the locks my flashlight hit a guy standing in the dark leaning up against the building in a trench coat (it was 90 degrees). I started a conversation with him and he stated he was waiting for his brother. OK, not a problem. I asked him what he was driving so I could be on the outlook for him. He said a submarine. I asked him to put his hands against the wall. He said again.
It was illegal to spend the night in the area, he was wearing a trench coat, he seemed very confused, the area was not frequented by submarines. Terry Stop for my safety?
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
