When does the Terry decision say you have to follow a cops' orders.

[Veritas]

In the Terry decision (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968),
the court ruled that a police officer who approached and questioned
two men after observing behavior constituting reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity was justified. That's rather narrowly defined;
I know a cop can do a "pat-down" search if there's reasonable
evidence that the person is carrying a weapon. But does reasonable
evidence include a traffic stop? It's my understanding that you
must exit the car if ordered in any case and you don't have to
answer any questions in any case, but does it legally justify a
pat-down search?

[deadrat]

In the Terry decision (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968), the
court ruled that a police officer who approached and questioned two men
after observing behavior constituting reasonable suspicion of criminal
activity was justified. That's rather narrowly defined; I know a cop can
do a "pat-down" search if there's reasonable evidence that the person is
carrying a weapon. But does reasonable evidence include a traffic stop?
It's my understanding that you must exit the car if ordered in any case
and you don't have to answer any questions in any case, but does it
legally justify a pat-down search?

The standard is not "reasonable evidence," but reasonable suspicion, in
the words of the Terry decision something based on "specific and
articulable facts," i.e., something more than a hunch or feeling. The
case on point for traffic stops is Arizona v. Johnson, 555US323 (2009),
but the stop for a traffic violation itself does not constitute grounds:
the suspicion must be that the person is armed.

[Bill Graham]

Post by Veritas
In the Terry decision (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968),
the court ruled that a police officer who approached and questioned
two men after observing behavior constituting reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity was justified. That's rather narrowly defined;
I know a cop can do a "pat-down" search if there's reasonable
evidence that the person is carrying a weapon. But does reasonable
evidence include a traffic stop? It's my understanding that you
must exit the car if ordered in any case and you don't have to
answer any questions in any case, but does it legally justify a
pat-down search?

No, but the average cop on the beat has never read the US Constitution, and
neither has the judge that will say his search was justified. So, If you are
stopped by a cop, you bette3r have a safe place under the dash to slip your
snubby revolver that would be really hard to find by the average cop. If
walking, and they find it on your person, make sure it is not registered to
you, and say, " Why officer, I just found this gun on the sidewalk back
there and was going to turn it in to the police the first chance I got".
Otherwise, their illegal serch will become, "justified" and you will be in
big trouble for exercising your second amendment rights. Please understand
that our Constitution is now an "Obsolete document" under these liberals and
will never again be the primary law of the land.

[Naughtius]

Post by Bill Graham

Post by Veritas
In the Terry decision (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968),
the court ruled that a police officer who approached and questioned
two men after observing behavior constituting reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity was justified. That's rather narrowly defined;
I know a cop can do a "pat-down" search if there's reasonable
evidence that the person is carrying a weapon. But does reasonable
evidence include a traffic stop?  It's my understanding that you
must exit the car if ordered in any case and you don't have to
answer any questions in any case, but does it legally justify a
pat-down search?

No, but the average cop on the beat has never read the US Constitution, and
neither has the judge that will say his search was justified. So, If you are
stopped by a cop, you bette3r have a safe place under the dash to slip your
snubby revolver that would be really hard to find by the average cop. If
walking, and they find it on your person, make sure it is not registered to
you, and say, " Why officer, I just found this gun on the sidewalk back
there and was going to turn it in to the police the first chance I got".
Otherwise, their illegal serch will become, "justified" and you will be in
big trouble for exercising your second amendment rights. Please understand
that our Constitution is now an "Obsolete document" under these liberals and
will never again be the primary law of the land.

SHUDDUP STUPID...

GAWD, Whatta _MORON_...

Naughtius "NOT In JAIL, A SLAVE, Or DEAD? THANK a Liberal" Maximus

[Naughtius]

Post by Veritas
In the Terry decision (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968),
the court ruled that a police officer who approached and questioned
two men after observing behavior constituting reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity was justified. That's rather narrowly defined;
I know a cop can do a "pat-down" search if there's reasonable
evidence that the person is carrying a weapon. But does reasonable
evidence include a traffic stop?  It's my understanding that you
must exit the car if ordered in any case and you don't have to
answer any questions in any case, but does it legally justify a
pat-down search?

Mmmm... You're *Confusing & Conflating* Cases Here...

"Terry" Spoke to the **AUTHORITY** of ONE (1) Suck-Ass PIG To
*DETAIN* And *Question* ONE (1) "Suspicious Character"... And THAT
"Opinion", Of Course, Applies To ALL Succeeding "Terry Encounter"
Actors...

The Supremes [giggle] ALSO Decreed that "... An Officer [SAP],
Having "Reasonable Suspicion" [Comprised of OBJECTIVE FACTS]; Taken
InThe Totality Of Circumstances; In Light Of The Officer's [SAP's]
Experience, MAY **BRIEFLY DETAIN** a "Suspect" For "Questioning", To
Determine Whether there Was... IS... Or WILL BE, "CRIME Afoot"... ALSO
In The Opinion: "IF The SAP Has REASON [Reasonable Suspicion] To
Believe The "DETAINEE" Is ARMED, For "SAP Security"; The SAP MAY
Perform a "NON-Intrusive Pat-Down Search of "Suspect's Clothing" for
the **CIRCUMSCRIBED Purpose of Determining The Presence of
[**Weapons**]...

"Terry" Itself Does NOT Authorize OR Speak To a "Detainee's"
OBLIGATION To OBEY a SAP *Order* To EXIT The Vehicle... There's TOO
MUCH NON-Conforming Law, Spread Over a GAZILLION Jurisdictions To Move
This Subject OUT Of The DREADED "Gray Area"... MY Recommendtion: DON'T
ARGUE With a Suck-Ass PIG Over This [Or ANY Point]... BUT, LOCK Your
Vehicle As You Exit... REFUSE [Once] to Surrender Your Keys... DON'T
Voluntarily "Give the SAP Your Keys... BUT If he/she FORCES The Issue,
State LOUDLY And CLEARLY That you DO NOT CONSENT to ANY "SEARCH"...
then SHUT THE FUCK UP... That Is... NO MATTER The Circumstances, NO
MATTER *WHERE* You Are "Detained", THE_ONLY_ Thing You Say In Response
to _ANY_ SAP Question Is: "I _DON'T_ Answer Questions!!"

You are ABSOLUTELY _RIGHT_ When You Say "...don't have to answer
any questions in any case...", AND "Terry" DOES "Say" PRECISELY
That...

IN SUPPORT Of My Exhortation To [CR]
NEVER TALK To Suck-Ass PIGS:

Naughtius "And [[[NEVER]]] Argue With A SAP" Maximus

[Joe Dixon]

Post by Veritas
It's my understanding that you
must exit the car if ordered in any case and you don't have to
answer any questions in any case, but does it legally justify a
pat-down search?

If the cop feels there is a threat they can search you for their own
safety.

[deadrat]

Post by Joe Dixon

Post by Veritas
It's my understanding that you
must exit the car if ordered in any case and you don't have to
answer any questions in any case, but does it legally justify a
pat-down search?

If the cop feels there is a threat they can search you for their own
safety.

Legally, the reason for the stop has to be more than a feeling. In
practice, I'm willing to believe that's all there is in most cases.
Once a "legal" stop has been made, the cop can do a pat down for weapons
as a matter of course. No justification need be given.