Reasonable suspicion

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

The Terry stop doctrine is that a cop can frisk a person  for weapons on reasonable suspicion that he might be armed, but he cannot be looking for other evidence, e.g., drugs, although if he finds something that might appear to a  reasonable person to be a weapon in the frisk, even though it wasn't, he can use it in evidence. The rationale is that cops have to protect themselves against armed attack.

 You are right that Warren court 4A protections against search and seizure have been eroded alsmot to the point of nonexistence. --jks

In a message dated Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:45:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:

<< About all they could be saying was that a frisk is not a full search. I can't remember. 

Since then, even the Fourth Amendment accomplishments of the Warren Court have been significantly obliterated. 

CB


>>> JKSCHW at aol.com 10/03/00 10:29AM >>>
Hey, that was the Warren court, allegedly the good guys. --jks

In a message dated Mon, 2 Oct 2000  5:23:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:

<< 


>>> JKSCHW at aol.com 10/02/00 05:07PM >>>

CB: By the way, since probable cause is the constitutional standard, how is it that reasonable suspicion passes constitutional muster ?

 >>

Take it up with the Supreme Court, who said it was in Terry. --jks

(((((((((((((((

CB: Yes, Stop and Frisk. Just seems a patently , logically wrong decision.

 I ain't about to say anything to the Supreme Hoods. 

 >>

 >>