Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover
I'm not sure what you mean by "an ambiguous situation" ...
.. a problem with principles as expressed in Terry et seq is they are HIGHLY FACT oriented ... the officer must be able to articulate factually why the officer was "in fear" of his or her safety AND those facts must be "reasonable" under the circumstances.... meaning such factors as location and time of the day ... how many officers were present .... how many citizens were present .... bystanders and "co-suspects" .. etc.
That's why the Court has recently limited vehicle searches on traffic stops ..... in which the driver/passengers have been taken into custody and are "secure" in the back of a patrol unit. The officer(s) are no longer threatened by any weapon in the vehicle for which they might be wanting to conduct a warrantless search! The officer's safety is no longer an issue and neither is the destruction of evidence by the driver/passengers. The "exigent circumstances" justifying a warrantless search are no longer a factor.
BTW: That evaluation by the Court is based on a stricter construction of the 4th amendment (conservative justices) ... liberal justices tend to ALLOW a more relaxed interpretation of the 4th amendment (and others).... for those of you who are voting for POTUS based on potential appointments to the SCOTUS.
|
Another excellent response.
The ambiguous situation would be a person walking down the same street where a robbery has happened to occur, and he doesn't appear to be acting funny, nor is he fleeing - he is just walking. He would not have been seen as suspicious in absence of the robbery.
If he is a partial match for the robbery, and upon briefly questioning him he doesn't seem to know about it, could you still pat him down for weapons if he refuses? What if you find a gun but it doesn't match when the ballistic tests confirm it isn't a match - do you still get a conviction for carrying a concealed weapon?