The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

Al Norris · April 24, 2009, 04:52 PM

There is a bit of new stuff to consider with the January Decision in Arizona v. Johnson, as it regards Terry Stops.

The Supreme Court held that:

the first condition of Terry v. Ohio, i.e. a lawful investigatory stop, is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation;
police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity; and
to justify a pat-down of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous.

Notice that the initial investigatory stop (first condition) need not be (statutorily) criminal. Just needs to be a lawful investigatory stop.

April 24, 2009, 04:52 PM	#54
Al Norris Moderator Emeritus Join Date: June 29, 2000 Location: Rupert, Idaho Posts: 9,660	There is a bit of new stuff to consider with the January Decision in Arizona v. Johnson, as it regards Terry Stops. The Supreme Court held that: the first condition of Terry v. Ohio, i.e. a lawful investigatory stop, is met whenever it is lawful for police to detain an automobile and its occupants pending inquiry into a vehicular violation; police need not have, in addition, cause to believe any occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity; and to justify a pat-down of the driver or a passenger during a traffic stop, however, just as in the case of a pedestrian reasonably suspected of criminal activity, the police must harbor reasonable suspicion that the person subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous. Notice that the initial investigatory stop (first condition) need not be (statutorily) criminal. Just needs to be a lawful investigatory stop.