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