Probable Cause and Reasonable suspicion?

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

In part. But a Terry pat-down is a exploration for weapons only. And you can--I wrote a case like this--feel a guy's balls. that's pretty invasive. --jks

In a message dated Tue, 3 Oct 2000  5:33:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, James Baird <jlbaird3 at yahoo.com> writes:

<< > In the 60's in the case of Terry that Justin
> mentioned, the Supreme Court held that an officer
> who had stopped and frisked someone for a gun did
> not violate the Constitutional requirement , even
> though the officer only had a reasonable suspicion
> that the person had a gun and not full probable
> cause.
> 
> They are word formulas, giving something of an
> illusion of objectivity, as the basis of  standards
> of conduct. 
> 

Doesn't it have something to do with the invasiveness
of the search, i.e. a pat-down only needs "reasonable
suspicion" while going through the pockets requires
"probable cause"?

Jim Baird

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos - 35mm Quality Prints, Now Get 15 Free!
http://photos.yahoo.com/

 >>