Terry stops..........

[waldonbuddy]

I just now read the term "Terry stop" and its definition on another post on THR {For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops. }

Now, about two years ago I was just starting my first week at a job on third shift. I bought my fathers small beat up import truck to go back and forth to work since it was good on gas over my F150 Ford.

I was driving through downtown on my way to work at approx 10pm. I noticed a police cruiser pull in behind me. We drove on that way with the cruiser behind me for about two blocks.

I got tired of playing that game quick. I pulled in to the closest business which was a Sonic hamburger drive in. The cops drove around the block then pulled in behind me with all lights flashing etc.

They told me to exit the vehicle which I did. Then one of the officers ask if he "could search me for his protection". I didn't know what to say, but yes.

They held me up for about 20 minutes asking all kinds of questions. They let me go, saying that a stolen truck matched my trucks description {bull$hit}.

Well since it was my first week on the job it ended up costing me my new position, and no, I didn't do anything else to warrant being let go.

My question is, was this a Terry stop? Could I have refused the search? It pissed me off being frisked in front of God and everybody since all I was doing was trying to get to work.:banghead:

Also, they asked me about three times if I had any weapons on me or in my vehicle. I have learned that in my state you don't have to declare any weapons in your vehicle when being pulled over by the law. A friend of mine, and me were wondering about this since we both agree that if you answer yes to having a weapon then you just escalate the situation, IF your dealing with a cop whose badge is a little heavy for him.

 

[CoRoMo]

They didn't pull you over, but you pulled over for them, he asked to search, you allowed it; the rest is history.

I don't think that was a TS. But you could have said, "No".

 

[Phatty]

Could I have refused the search?

You could have refused to give your consent to the search. If the officer decided that he was going to search you even without your consent, then you have to comply with the search, but at least in that situation you still have the option to later challenge the search as being illegal.

 

[Phatty]

They held me up for about 20 minutes asking all kinds of questions.

A court will very likely find that 20 minutes is a reasonable amount of time for the police officers to stop and question you in conjunction with the stolen truck investigation.

 

[waldonbuddy]

Thanks for the info, but how would I find out if the "stolen truck" reason was real, or just an excuse to question me? It sounded like a made up excuse to harrass me. I think the main reason they pulled me over was because of the beat up truck I was driving, not because they thought it was stolen.

Also, like I said I pulled into the Sonic, the cops drove all the way around the block then came back around with all the fanfare.

 

[Zoogster]

Yes.
Terry was abused to see if you had weapons or drugs (not officially legal, but if they stumble across them searching for weapons...) most likely.
Police follow you until you go 1mph over the speed limit, weave, change lanes without signaling, or make any movement they can claim was suspicious. They can claim you being uncomfortable and turning off the road to avoid them was also suspicious behavior, like you had something to hide.
As you see it is a lose lose situation, and they will eventually be able to pull you over if the want to.

Terry frisks are often abused to search anyone to discover contraband when no reasonable cause exists. If contraband is found they can say they did actually have reasonable cause or found it during a routine pat down. For example if they find a drug they can claim you appeared under the influence, they smelled it, or that you were acting suspicious in an area known for such criminal activity etc
If they find a gun or weapon they could claim they saw the bulge, or just stumbled upon it while doing a terry for just that purpose.
If they find nothing they make up a reason that they can defend later if challenged, sometimes telling you and sometimes just noting it in the report.

Thanks for the info, but how would I find out if the "stolen truck" reason was real, or just an excuse to question me?

There is always a stolen vehicle that is "similar" to yours anywhere in the United States, because there is thousands of stolen vehicles. This means at any time there is always an SUV, pickup truck, car, or motorcycle of your color or a similar color stolen at any time which they can reference to defend their actions in court if needed.
There will always be a stolen white truck, so they can always stop you if they think they might find something.
It is a common BS reason to investigate someone they would like to, and officially it is always a valid reason.



While officially "reasonable suspicion" sounds like some sort of burden, in reality it is not. An officer can create reasonable suspicion that will pass in a court of law for just about any person at any time if they use their brain.
The fact that he said your truck was similar to a stolen truck was him letting you know he had "reasonable suspicion". So complaining about being stopped would get you nowhere.

They let me go, saying that a stolen truck matched my trucks description

is their way of letting you know they had reasonable suspicion.


I have lived in high gang areas before and dealt with a lot of officers trying to combat the problem, and known many more friends and acquaintances who have been searched for nothing.
If you traveled by foot instead of by vehicle in a bad area like many young people it was even more common.
One area I lived searched about any group of teenagers or young adults and would empty their pockets on the hood of the patrol car as a routine formality after dark.
Constitutional? Maybe not, but it was done and any who did not comply would be arrested for "resisting arrest" or "interference with an officer in the performance of his duties" or some other such nonsense.
Anyone charged and convicted (in mickey mouse juvenile court which does not even have jury trials being charged almost assured conviction) would then be on probation in the future, and so have no right to privacy and could be searched at will.
So compliance was routine, as was avoidance of police by most young people who had been through the hassle of a search at least once.


One way they get around the official requirements for youth today is curfew. With both an evening curfew, and some places with a daytime (during school hours) curfew. Meaning they can stop any youth and reasonably believe they are committing a crime (violating curfew) irregardless of the youth having a valid reason (like homeschooled, no school that day, half day, etc etc) and committing no crimes.
Thus there is always "reasonable suspicion" and even "probable cause" for all youth within certain hours some places.
Now most gun owners are not youth, so it does not directly affect us, but it is a related area that is worth mentioning and does condition young people to accept such behavior and tolerate it as adults, which can lead to even worse legislation and case law. For a related example the security screening in so many places now to combat terrorism has made the general population much less demanding of privacy rights than ever before.

Having traveled through much of the nation I can say different regions are very different on respecting privacy.
With things routine in some viewed as intolerable invasions of privacy in others.
What level of privacy is regularly respected will depend greatly on your location.

Your status in society and appearance makes a big difference too. An adult in an expensive automobile and with a professional or expensive appearance gets better treatment than the working man in his pickup, or the teenager in an old used vehicle. Partially because it tells the officer they are less likely involved in petty crime, and partially because money is power. The segment with money can bring expensive lawsuits, pay most of the taxes that pay officer salaries, and are more likely to have contacts that can cause an officer extensive trouble. While someone just barely getting by cannot afford extensive lawsuits and is also more likely to be involved in petty crime.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Sooner or later some officer will Terry Stop some powerful hot shot lawyer and he and his dept will pay in Spades for everyone who has abused this caselaw over the years.

 

[Zoogster]

Oh I should add that by giving them permission to search you lose all arguments in court.
They no longer have to show a reasonable suspicion for anything if you volunteer to give up your rights.

So even though they normally may do it anyways, you might have some recourse in court to easily dismiss both bogus or even some real charges without relying on more difficult to explain evidence alone.

This why even when a cop is going to search a vehicle or person anyways they will typically ask for permission first. It may seem they are just being polite, but it totally changes the legal consequences of the search.
Giving permission frees them of any risk, and means anything they find or claim to find won't be challenged as inadmissible.
They rely on people feeling guilty about saying no, or fearing it will look suspicious if they do and giving permission as a result.
They even word asking permission in ways like "There is no reason you don't want me to search the vehicle is there?"
Or "Do you have anything to hide or object to me taking a quick look in the vehicle?"
Or as in your example "could search you for his protection."
Which clearly is going to intimidate your average person into giving permission without even realizing they just made a legal decision.
You can give permission but you cannot take it back. It is like inviting an officer inside your home, once done you may have a difficult time getting them out and they most certainly are going to poke around looking for any possible thing to charge you with, including things you may not even be aware are illegal.

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Zoogster pretty much nailed it.

Once the officer gives you back your drivers license, and you are no longer detained for the inevitable traffic infraction, leave. Usually as soon as he gives you back your license he will make some bs comment or question and then ask for permission to search. Politely say "No, I am heading to my first day at a new job and cannot be late." Then he either has to arrest you, which he cannot do without probable cause of drugs, guns etc. or he has to let you go. There is no evidence related to speeding inside of a car.

 

[mljdeckard]

Terry is WIDELY abused. This is part bad training, part willful disregard of the law on the part of the cop, and part getting away with it often enough to make it worth it.

The judge who taught my law classes said that he gets the same cops over and over again in his court saying that they did a 'routine Terry search' with the stop. When asked how often they do them, they say always. Then they say that on every stop they are in fear for their safety, so they search. These same cops are the ones who call him at 2am for search warrants with no specific probable cause. I asked him why they keep doing it, and he says that because other judges either grant the warrant or admit bad searches often enough that they develop a mindset of; "Why not? The worst that will happen is that half of them will get thrown out, the other half will stick." No one gives them any reason to stop.

20 minutes is the time currently regarded as reasonable for a traffic stop without it being called detention. They will do everything they can in that time to sucker you into letting them search to get them off your back.

We had an interesting discussion in that class, that if the Miranda warnings are so necessary to make sure people don't incriminate themselves unfairly at arrest, then at a traffic stop, police should be required to warn you; "You have the right to refuse a search. You are not being detained at this time and you are allowed to leave." If it is necessary to tell arrestees they have rights, why not regular guys in traffic stops?

 

[NavyLCDR]

What I really hate is watching COPS and seeing them conducting a Terry frisk and removing everything out of the guy's pockets and putting it on the hood or roof of the car - a completely illegal action.

 

[Dokkalfar]

There is absolutely no reason to ever give permission (consent) to a search. If they seem to be nosy or anything, certainly feel free to state that you do not consent to a search. They can try to say that you leaving your door open when you exit the car is 'consent'.

I am not a lawyer, but the way I understand a legal Terry search is a quick pat-down of a person to discover any weapons. Basically, they can feel along the outside of your clothes and only enter pockets if the item felt appears to be a weapon. keys/wallet/phone should not have to be pulled out. I've done a bit with pat-downs through ROTC classes, and those are pretty thorough, yet still take maybe a minute or two. A legal Terry search should take maybe 30 seconds to complete:

Tell them whats in pockets: keys, wallet, pocketknife, etc.
Top of arm.
Bottom of arm.
Top of arm.
Bottom of arm.
Side, from armpit down to foot.
Side, from armpit down to foot.
Inside leg, down to foot.
Inside leg, down to foot.
Along waist, front and back.

The only time they should stop and take something out is if it feels like a firearm, knife, or other legally defined weapons. Its pretty easy to tell by feel if something is a set of keys or a wallet instead...

 

[Bookworm]

Next time lock your door and pocket your keys as you get out. Their legal reason to search your vehicle is "officer safety" but if you are in their custody and the vehicle is locked, they cannot.

Nor do you have any obligation to give them your keys or consent to anything. Lacking probable cause to believe you have committed a crime, they cannot take your keys - they are not a weapon. You do not have to empty your pockets, and decline to do so.

One website I visit recommends the above, plus stating "I do not consent to any search or seizure. I refuse to answer any of your questions without benefit of a lawyer. Am I free to leave?" And say nothing further.

They cannot badger you any more, as the "questioning" must stop once you demand a lawyer. Nor may they hold you for longer than the reason for the initial stop.

If that is violated, follow up with a consultation with an attorney for possible criminal and civil charges.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

a cop is behind you for two whole blocks and you can't stand the prssure and pull over?

is there some backstory as to what makes this "playing that game"?

 

[Dwrice]

From experence If you had just kept driving, most likely you still had your job. The officer was most ran the plate information and was waiting for it to come back when you veered into the store acting like someone with something to hide. Creating "reasonable suspicion" to stop you.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

playing the game

 

[beatcop]

Already has been said, just go about your normal life...less complications.

Some good info and some bad being put out...I wonder how some guys have become so seasoned?

Anyway, if your "vehicle" was put out in a bolo or was on the roll call board as a stolen, there's a history that can be traced. The fact that there are stolen vehicles across the USA doesn't come into play...they don't read 5000 of them at roll call. You run the plate and you get your anwer...As I tell everyone, go make a complaint if you feel you were truly violated. Since it's a two year old incident...you're a little late.

 

[beatcop]

I am not a lawyer, but the way I understand a legal Terry search is a quick pat-down of a person to discover any weapons. Basically, they can feel along the outside of your clothes and only enter pockets if the item felt appears to be a weapon. keys/wallet/phone should not have to be pulled out. I've done a bit with pat-downs through ROTC classes, and those are pretty thorough, yet still take maybe a minute or two. A legal Terry search should take maybe 30 seconds to complete:

ROTC, eh? We're not searching EPW's here. Google up "Plain Feel Doctrine".

 

[Deanimator]

a cop is behind you for two whole blocks and you can't stand the prssure and pull over?

Maybe HE has had few enough encounters with the police that they make him frightened and nervous.

Believe it or not, there are people who don't want anything to do with the police or the criminal justice system and try at all costs to avoid them.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The way I understand it, they can only frisk and search if there is articulable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is in progress, not if there is a suspicion that you are armed.

Saying your vehicle matches the report of a stolen vehicle was most likely cover so they could search you and your vehicle. I think it's BS in my understanding of this situation.

Woody

 

[Deanimator]

ROTC, eh? We're not searching EPW's here.

Never in the military, huh?

It's hardly unusual to have to detain a service member for any number of reasons, from theft to drug trafficking.

One of my ROTC instructors had been the Provost Martial of Panama and the CO of Lt. Calley's guard detachment at his court martial. When we spent the weekend at Ft. Leonard Wood, we got to do ride-alongs with the post MPs.

 

[Deanimator]

Saying your vehicle matches the report of a stolen vehicle was most likely cover so they could search you and your vehicle. I think it's BS in my understanding of this situation.

A lot of cops will do what they think you'll let them get away with. If they think you're guilty, scared or ignorant, they figure they can get away with more. As often as not, they're right. Criminals are often dumb and will say and do dumb things which will incriminate them. Things go off the rails when they get somebody who's:

innocent
knows his rights
isn't afraid of them

The smart ones know when the fish aren't biting and move on to the next "encounter".

The dumb ones think they've got to be "tough" and end up costing themselves and their departments money, sometimes a lot of money.

"Officer am I free to leave? No? I have nothing to say without my lawyer present. No, I don't consent a search."

Don't consent to ANYTHING, but don't physically resist.

At that point, it's fish or cut bait. If he wants to dig himself a hole, give him as expensive a shovel as he's willing to pay for. Where lawful to do so, carry and use a voice recorder. It's amazing how sometimes a cop will incriminate himself just like a car thief.

 

[beatcop]

Never in the military, huh?

20+ Enlisted

The smart ones know when the fish aren't biting and move on to the next "encounter".

The goal of a stop is locate crooks based on a reasonable suspicion, not to jerk people around. A lot of folks object to being asked ANY questions, sorry for the inconvenience, but that's part of the job.

Some on this board are encountering law enforcement for the first time, whether it's because they are coming into age, driving, or open carrying in an area not broken-in yet...a quick google search can get the concept across for most principles of cj.

The dumb ones think they've got to be "tough" and end up costing themselves and their departments money, sometimes a lot of money

Yup, some cops have ego's...some exert a command presence to keep the bs level down during the stop. Acting like Barney Fife is a quick way to get killed by a crook debating his chances of successful resistance.

If you're a swearing at the motorists, abusing, etc you should be punished IAW regs...however asking questions multiple times (Any weapons?) isn't a violation. Crooks usually can't keep their bs story straight under stress, so it's just a standard interview technique.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

Crooks usually can't keep their bs story straight under stress,


ain't that the truth. painful to watch

 

[Sebastian the Ibis]

Check out the video here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=6396655#post6396655

at about 26:00