No. To be legal, the Terry stop must satisfy a two pronged test. You may stop someone if you believe that there was, is, or about to be a crime committed. After the stop, if you can articulate a specific concern that the suspect is armed or dangerous and might be armed, you may do a quick pat down of his outer clothing for weapons. Even Wikipedia gets this one right.If you are pulled over by a law enforcement officer and the officer has a "strong hunch" that you are about to engage in criminal activity or simply fears for his or her safety the law enforcement officer can...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
And mljdeckard...a "strong hunch" and "WHEN THEY HAVE AN ARTICULABLE REASON" are synonymous to me. Any argument otherwise is a based on semantics and an exercise in futility.
No, it's not "semantics" it is a requirement. Here's a test. On your next arrest report, instead of listing the observable facts, just put you had a "hunch." I'm sure your commanding officer will consider the phrase more than just semantics. Of course, if you're so inclined, you can write the report with the findings of any illegal/inappropriate search as the basis for your supposed pre-search articulatable facts, (i.e. lie based on the findings...) but then you need to be careful as your carrer in law enforcement could be in jeopardy because of the Brady v. Maryland (1963) case and subsequent clarifying opinion in Giglio v. United States (1972). BUt, since you seem so well versed, I am sure you already knew this...
I'm all for officer safety, but if you're going to spout off about the law and the legality of searches, at least provide the correct information.