View Single Post
Old 04-22-2018, 03:09 PM
k9bfriender k9bfriender is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,150
Originally Posted by Loach View Post
Of course it is. If the pat down was done in accordance with the Terry decision. Terry is a legal intrusion why wouldn’t what was found admissible? Now if a judge decides the situation did not meet the criteria for a pat down or if the pat down what beyond the scope of Terry then the evidence would be thrown out.
IANAL. But, it does seem as though the excuse to search someone without a warrant under the pretext that you are just being safe and checking for weapons short circuits due process a bit.

MikeF specifically said
Terry does not allow police to search someone without a warrant. It allows a "frisk" or "pat down" for weapons only. Before officers can conduct a frisk they must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the person may be armed and dangerous. Legally, they cannot empty pockets or check undergarments. As a matter of practice, many (most?) cops will pat down anyone who they have the slightest suspicion about. ("better safe than sorry" theory) If they don't turn up any weapons, no harm - no foul and no one is likely to complain about this very limited intrusion,
So, my question on that is, they turn up no weapon, but they do turn up a non-weapon related contraband item. If you give them permission to search everyone on the pretense that they may be armed, then why do we even bother paying lip service to any sort of probable cause?

Last edited by k9bfriender; 04-22-2018 at 03:10 PM.