0
Yes. This follows under Terry vs. Ohio (Terry Stop).
Information conveyed by third parties.
-Known sources are reliable, but information must provide Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of criminal activity.
-Unknown sources must corroborate to establish reliability and Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of criminal activity. Examples: Alabama vs. White (1990) Specific detail that collaborates future events
-Fellow officer sources are reliable, but information must provide Reasonable Articulable Suspicion of activity. It justifies both Terry Stop and arrest.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What does a stop and frisk allow an officer to do?
The officer may perform a "Stop" when the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect may have committed a crime. The officer may perform a "Frisk" when there is a lawful "Stop", along with reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.
What is a reasonable suspect?
Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. It can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person would, based upon specific facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.
What is reasonable search?
I think you are confusing your legal terminology. I've never heard the term "reasonable search" applied to any search. There is a a phrase; "reasonable suspicion," that is used to support a field search conducted under a "Terry stop."
What level of proof is required for an officer to conduct a stop and frisk?
Officers are required to have reasonable suspicion to detain someone, and must have further belief that the person may be carrying a weapon that can be used to harm the officer in order to frisk them. Reasonable suspicion is a level of belief less than probable cause.
Does a criminal history warrant reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is a Fourth Amendment constitutional standard that can be based on multiple factors. Stemming from the 1961 landmark case in Terry v. Ohio, a police officer may only stop, seize or otherwise detain a person if that officer can point to specific and articulable facts that the person seized has, is, or will violate the law. Specific facts don't have to be legal violations themselves and are often only tenuously related to any potential legal violations. Courts often cite time of day, whether the person stopped is in a "high crime area," and whether a person appears nervous as factors supporting reasonable suspicion for a stop. Reasonable suspicion cannot be based on a mere hunch of the officer. Generally, an officer's knowledge that someone has a criminal record would not in and of itself rise to reasonable suspicion for a stop. However, in combination with other factors, such as proximity to another crime, or other "suspicious" behavior, criminal record can be relevant in determining whether reasonable suspicion for a stop. Ultimately, any such question will be up to a judge who reviews whether a reasonable police officer under the totality of the circumstances had sufficient facts to believe the person stopped had or was violating the law.
Does stop and search invade peoples privacy?
The correct terminology is Stop and Frisk - and the Supreme Court has ruled that if the officer's 'reasonable suspicion' for the stop can be articulated, it is, in fact, legal and proper. See: Terry v. Ohio
Do Stop and frisk requires one factual basis?
Yes, stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. This must be based on specific and articulable facts.
What is the cons of frisk and stop?
A stop and frisk, or a Terry stop, allows law enforcement or an agent acting under law enforcement authority, to pat down an individual's outer clothing.The law permitting this search is intended to (1) dispel the reasonable suspicion that the person is armed during a legal detainment (cop has a right to stop and detain the individual and the individual has an obligation to remain) or (2) to dispel any reasonably suspicion that the individual is carrying evidence of a crime or otherwise unlawful substances.The cons of a stop and frisk are in the testimony of law enforcement in stating their belief that there was in fact "a reasonable suspicion"; in particular, while a cop in most states will be able to justify a suspicion of an individual on the street being armed, it is often tricky for the cop to show reasonable suspicion the individual is carrying something illegal.It seems worthwhile to note here that the stop and frisk must be done during the lawful detainment of an individual, or else the cop must prove the individual consented to the search. If incriminating evidence is found, a defense can easily be raised that the defendant would not have consented. However, a political, if not legal issue, arises at this point as the defense lawyer would essentially be calling the cop a liar.The cons of a stop and frisk is that, in court, it is often the credibility of the defendant against the credibility of the cop that determines what happened during the Terry stop and why.Another View:The above answer contains incorrect information. ANY stop made by an officer is going to be based upon "reasonable suspicion." "Reasonable suspicion" of WHAT? The 'reasonable suspicion of the officer that the individual may have committed a crime! The courts have ruled that - FOR THE OFFICERS SAFETY - they may do a Terry Frisk on subjects they have stopped on the street for interrogation. The officer does NOT need to be able to articulate that they believed the subject was armed, their own self-protection during the stop of a suspected criminal is justification enough!
Can a police officer stop you when a third party called in that you were over the line?
If the information was from an anonymous caller, the officer would need to independently witness some sort of illegal or erratic driving before stopping the car, once he/she located it. If the caller identified him/herself, arguably they could be used to establish reasonable suspicion for a stop. This might be difficult from a practical standpoint, so the officer would typically wait to make a stop until he/she witnessed something that would independently justify the stop.
What is required for a police officer to pat down a person stopped on the street?
A police officer can stop and detain a person if the officer has a reasonable suspicion the person is involved in a crime. Performing a "pat down" requires an additional level of suspicion that the person may be carrying a weapon that could be used to harm the officer. Examples could includethe person detained is a known or apparent member of a gang that routinely carries firearms,the person fits the description of a suspect in an armed robbery where a firearm was displayed or used,the person has a bulge in their clothing characteristic of a weapon.Reasonable suspicion to stop and detain does not, in itself, amount to the level of suspicion required to do a pat down for weapons.
No front license plate probable cause for traffic stop in Colorado?
Yes. But police aren't required to have probable cause to pull you over - the standard is reasonable suspicion, which is much lower than probable cause.
What is it called when people witness a violent situation and do nothing stop it?
A person who witnesses a crime and does nothing to stop it or report it is under no obligation to do so. Therefore, though that action doesn't have a title, I would call it an unwillingness to get involved.
