ExpertLaw.com Forums

Terry Pat Appropriate Response

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... Next LastLast
  • 04-20-2010, 04:01 PM
    Keyser_Soze
    Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    I know laws differ somewhat state to state (I believe) but if an officer detains u and says they are going to search you, if they feel around in your pockets for small items that are obviously NOT weapons and ask u 'what's this'? or sort of tell u to take it out of your pocket, what would be a reasonable response assuming u do not wish to comply?

    Should you say "Is that a request or an order officer?" Something else?

    Terry pats don't allow cops to have suspects/detainee's empty out the entire contents of their pockets do they? I'm not talking about if they were doing survailance or anything like that, more of a bull crap profile, semi shot in the dark.

    Any advice appreciated!
  • 04-20-2010, 04:50 PM
    jk
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    has something happened or are you simply asking using hypothetical situations?
  • 04-22-2010, 03:35 PM
    Papi Yanqui
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    Weapons can be as small as a lipstick knife.
  • 04-22-2010, 08:01 PM
    Keyser_Soze
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    Quote:

    Quoting Papi Yanqui
    View Post
    Weapons can be as small as a lipstick knife.

    Is this covered under the spirit of the Terry Pat law? Should I have to take off my boots because I can use them as weapons? What about loose shoe laces? What about my teeth? Should I have to have them all knocked out so I don't fatally bite the cop in the juggler vein?

    And this is just a hypothetical question.

    And maybe all cops should carry nail clippers so they can clip all female's fingernails before they are handcuffed so they don't use them as 'weapons' to scratch their eyes out.

    Oh, wait, the spirit of the terry pat is supposed to be 'reasonable', isn't it?
  • 04-22-2010, 08:07 PM
    jk
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    Quote:

    Quoting Keyser_Soze
    View Post

    Oh, wait, the spirit of the terry pat is supposed to be 'reasonable', isn't it?

    really? what do you consider to be reasonable?

    the officer is allowed to feel outside of the clothes over the entire body. They are allowed to remove any item they determine to be likely a weapon. If they cannot support their claim it was likely a weapon, they went beyond the allowed actions.
  • 04-23-2010, 11:05 AM
    BOR
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    Quote:

    Quoting Keyser_Soze
    View Post
    I know laws differ somewhat state to state (I believe) but if an officer detains u and says they are going to search you, if they feel around in your pockets for small items that are obviously NOT weapons and ask u 'what's this'? or sort of tell u to take it out of your pocket, what would be a reasonable response assuming u do not wish to comply?

    Should you say "Is that a request or an order officer?" Something else?

    Terry pats don't allow cops to have suspects/detainee's empty out the entire contents of their pockets do they? I'm not talking about if they were doing survailance or anything like that, more of a bull crap profile, semi shot in the dark.

    Any advice appreciated!

    Terry v. Ohio outlines a weapons pat/Terry frisk. It is NOT automatic, a "reasonable belief/suspicion" the person may be armed is sufficient.

    A Terry frisk does NOT include an interior pocket search, true. If however, when skimming the outer layer of clothing, the officer feels an object, that based on his experience/training, is contrband, then a full search is permitted under the federal constitution, state constitutions may afford more protection.

    Quote:

    Quoting Keyser_Soze
    View Post
    Is this covered under the spirit of the Terry Pat law? Should I have to take off my boots because I can use them as weapons? What about loose shoe laces? What about my teeth? Should I have to have them all knocked out so I don't fatally bite the cop in the juggler vein?

    Any such action is not required, boots, teeth, etc. When an arrest is made, then we talk other talk.

    A Terry frisk IS a search, it is just the SC has permitted warrantless searches in a few carefully crafted areas. If you remove the boot by order, so he can see, that IS a search also, and without probable cause OR a reasonable suspicion he can not order you to do it to over your objection.
  • 04-23-2010, 12:03 PM
    jk
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    Quote:

    Quoting BOR
    View Post
    A Terry frisk does NOT include an interior pocket search, true. If however, when skimming the outer layer of clothing, the officer feels an object, that based on his experience/training, is contrband, then a full search is permitted under the federal constitution, state constitutions may afford more protection.

    n.


    my understanding is the object must be reasonably be perceived to be a weapon only. Contraband, to me, includes any illegal substance/object.
  • 04-23-2010, 12:19 PM
    BOR
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    my understanding is the object must be reasonably be perceived to be a weapon only. Contraband, to me, includes any illegal substance/object.

    You forgot about Minnesota v. Dickerson (plain feel) which we have discussed here before. As I said though, a state constitution may afford greater protection.

    My state, Ohio, our S&S clause is Co-Extensive with the federal 4th, so what they permit, we do, with just a few minor exceptions, such as was pronunced in Atwater/Texas, we do not adhere to it.
  • 04-23-2010, 02:54 PM
    jk
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    I was thinking of what Carl had said to the matter. He stated that unless the object is discernible as a weapon, it was fair game. If it wasn't, it was not. He had even explained that a crack pipe was easily discernible and as such, was not a weapon and therefore, off limits.

    Isn't that great. I'm arguing Car'ls info against a SCOTUS ruling.:D

    but concerning Minn v. Dickerson;

    this is a quote from a reliable source (Wikipedia):p:

    Quote:

    The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the cocaine in this case was inadmissible as evidence even though the Court held that officers were allowed to assume that an object was contraband through touch
    that seems to speak contrary to your claim.
  • 04-23-2010, 03:56 PM
    BOR
    Re: Terry Pat Appropriate Response
    Quote:

    Quoting jk
    View Post
    I was thinking of what Carl had said to the matter. He stated that unless the object is discernible as a weapon, it was fair game. If it wasn't, it was not. He had even explained that a crack pipe was easily discernible and as such, was not a weapon and therefore, off limits.

    Isn't that great. I'm arguing Car'ls info against a SCOTUS ruling.:D

    but concerning Minn v. Dickerson;

    this is a quote from a reliable source (Wikipedia):p:

    Quote:

    The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the cocaine in this case was inadmissible as evidence even though the Court held that officers were allowed to assume that an object was contraband through touch
    that seems to speak contrary to your claim.

    You either misunderstood Carl before, OR CA does not permit the plain feel doctrine as described?

    When wiki said INadmissable, it was a typo, it should have read; admissable; read the actual case, but this is also a quote from the same article you quoted from;

    Holding
    The Fourth Amendment permits the seizure of contraband detected through a police officer's sense of touch during a protective patdown search.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_v._Dickerson
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... Next LastLast
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4
Copyright © 2023 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Copyright © 2004 - 2018 ExpertLaw.com, All Rights Reserved