If a person is seized pursuant to a Terry Stop (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)), are they entitled to know what the officer's reasonable suspision is? If the officer cannot or will not provide a reasonable suspicion at the time, is the stop legal?
2007-02-20 15:09:35 · 8 answers · asked by l0st 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Absolutely the Police Officer must, under Rule 3.2. advise as to the reason for detention.
This is what 3.2 says: A law enforcement officer who has detained a person under Rule 3.1 (Terry stop) shall immediately advise that person of his official identity and the reason for the detention.
As to the stop itself being legal, this is a sticky situation. Unless there is audio on file for the stop it will be hard to prove the stop was illegal. The Officer has to articulate the reason why he stopped you in his report, his reason will be in it.
An Officer may stop a vehicle when he reasonably suspects that one of its occupants is committing, has commited, or is about to commit a felony or misdemeanor involving danger or forcible injury to persons or appropriation of, or damage to, property.
2007-02-20 16:14:45 · answer #1 · answered by WhatTF 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The fourth amendment tells what is a reasonable search, if the officer has secured a warrant that information would be on the application for the warrant.
2007-02-20 15:14:58 · answer #2 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
fever and head trauma are the two maximum consumer-friendly motives different then epilepsy. Seizures delivered on with the aid of stress are via epilepsy maximum human beings of the time - i've got on no account heard of somebody having one via stress with out previous historic previous.
2016-11-24 21:19:22 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To require the police to explain to anyone what they are doing at any given time is unreasonable! If that were the case, you'd see the police debating back and forth with everyone they contact (image trying to arrest a bank robber, whose armed, and him demanding to be talked to about his rights!) Absurd!
Its good to question authority, but not in the field. In the field, the police will win, because they are concerned about getting killed or hurt, so they have to be a little gruff, and "hands on" at times. If you are stopped by the police, and they are very direct (raised voice, directing your) then you have a duty to obey and cooperate. If you raise your finger and say, "...but," you are likely to be thrown to the grown, or worse!
The court room, or after the incident at the station is the place to question and speak to the watch commander. I have stopped several people in my career who happend to be wearing what the suspect was reported to have been wearing. Yes, innocent people were stopped, frisked, and identified. After, I always explain to them what the misunderstanding was. After all, I am trying to make their streets safer by catching a robber, rapist, thief, etc...
2007-02-20 16:44:15 · answer #4 · answered by JR 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
there is not much you can do because in our system we have the law who can just say for officer's safety we will treat every one like a criminal until proven different.remember justice is spelled" just-us". well atleast in oregon anyway.
2007-02-20 22:16:58 · answer #5 · answered by james 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ask the Attorney General.
2007-02-20 15:12:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Generally when a complaint is made if I'm not mistaken.
2007-02-21 08:08:33 · answer #7 · answered by Crossroads Keeper 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
if this is an opinion, always. the us law, idk
2007-02-21 06:23:50 · answer #8 · answered by imputh 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋