# You're Being Detained, Sir, For Babysitting Someone of a Different Race **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 12, 2008, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348 "2008-11-12T15:08:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/201 "2008-11-15T15:16:53Z")
**Arnold** while I never said “5 seconds” I would venture to guess that whoever did was not meaning it literally by a stopwatch. But literally less than 30? Sure. Now ideally it could have gone like this: Officer- “Who are you to this child sir?” Citizen- “Oh. I’m her mother’s godfather. Helping out. Her Mom didn’t want her in daycare today because of that shooting having been near the daycare and …” Officer (interrupting having seen enough that there is a ready answer and observed that the child does not seem in distress other than hanging onto the man’s leg and trying to pull him along, nothing suspicious here, better things to do, a donut and coffee still in the car, getting cold)- “Thank you sir.” Maybe 10 seconds there. His refusing to answer the question would have immediately raised a suspicious behavior eyebrow. But the exercising his rights alone is not sufficient grounds to do more or to offset what would have been the behavior of the child - which would have been to cling to the citizen in question. No behavior that would make one suspicious of an abduction in progress. Assessment is made. Yeah add 5 to 10 more for that. As to your "should have … " - I was responding to your hypothetical dialog, the one that occurred after the officer let him go and he turned out to be an abductor after all. And yes, they defend their proper action by explaining how what was observable was not suspicious enough to detain further and that people cannot be detained for exercising their rights as the sole suspicious behavior. If hypothetically the officer behaved properly but the man turned out to be an evildoer after all. I’m still more interested now in the other angle: If he refuses to affirm any relationship to the child then the child is on the street without someone who claims responsibility for her. An officer is in the presence of a two year old child who is without anyone who claims responsibility for or a relationship to her. That child must be taken into protective services: Officer: “Yes sir, you are free to go. The child however is being taken to Child Protective Services as there is no one present who claims responsibility for her. Have a nice day sir.” A little King Solomon-esque perhaps, but his leaving at that point would warrant a call to tail him at the least, otherwise he’d be very likely to cough up all identifying information including god-daughter’s cell phone number if possible. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/202 "2008-11-15T15:33:15Z")
> [@Arnold\_Winkelried](#): > > So she’s supposed to determine that in 5 seconds? “Here’s my name and address Am I free to go?” Even Sherlock Holmes took more time than that to solve a case. But she’s not solving a case. She’s trying to determine if there IS a case. And yes, you get about 60 seconds for that because we’re all presumed to be innocent in this country. If she can’t see, touch, smell, hear or taste something suspicious enough to make her think a crime has been committed in those seconds, then there’s no case to be solved. And the one thing you’re expressly \*forbidden \*to use as “suspicious” is the person exercising their constitutional rights. Not answering can \*\*not \*\*be used as probable cause in court. Yes, this means some bad guys get away in the middle of committing a subtle crime. But we’ve decided that’s better than a system in which good guys get thrown into jail for looking at an officer funny. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/203 "2008-11-15T19:57:36Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So – is there any reason to hear either “white man walking down the street holding black toddler’s hand” or “black man walking down the street holding white toddler’s hand” and believe there’s probable cause that a crime is being committed, or even reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime? > > My view is: no. But perhaps an argument can be made for erring on the side of caution and protecting the child by investigating. If anyone thinks there is, I’d like to hear it. Its not just black and white. There is also a strange man in the neighbourhood. Race aside, he’s too old to be her father. Old men rarely babysit. Given that this is a response from a neighbour I would expect that the cop would want to be assured that the child’s safety is secure. Given that any reasonable person would volunteer his relationship to the child, the refusal to do so is certainly suspicious. Look at it this way. A child is being detained until its safety is reasonably assured. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/204 "2008-11-15T22:20:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Now let’s take the alternate situation: Instead of stonewalling, the grandfather tells the responding officer that he’s babysitting his grandchild. The officer goes on about his business. Or, let’s look at the alternate situation: The grandfather gives the officer his identifying information, and asks the officer if he’s free to go. The officer sees no evidence that there’s a crime being committed, and so says yes. Both go about their business. Or, let’s look at another alternate situation: The grandfather gives the officer his identifying information, and the officer asks him what his relationship is. He says that he’s the kid’s grandfather, and the officer asks “Can you prove that?”. Meanwhile, the officer has a check run on the guy’s information, and finds that he’s not actually the kid’s grandfather. Officer then detains and possibly arrests the grandfather for giving false information to the police. ---
**Author:** ![vison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/e47774/32.png) [@vison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vison)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/205 "2008-11-15T23:46:18Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Or, let’s look at the alternate situation: The grandfather gives the officer his identifying information, and asks the officer if he’s free to go. The officer sees no evidence that there’s a crime being committed, and so says yes. Both go about their business. > > Or, let’s look at another alternate situation: The grandfather gives the officer his identifying information, and the officer asks him what his relationship is. He says that he’s the kid’s grandfather, and the officer asks “Can you prove that?”. Meanwhile, the officer has a check run on the guy’s information, and finds that he’s not actually the kid’s grandfather. Officer then detains and possibly arrests the grandfather for giving false information to the police. It’s never a really good idea to lie to a cop. Even a little lie, like saying “grandfather” instead of “godfather to her mother”, or whatever the hell the actual relationship was. Sure, rights have to be protected and in some cases rights have to be asserted. I assert the man was unwise. Not “wrong”, not “stupid”, but unwise. Pick your fights, especially if the cops are involved. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/206 "2008-11-16T00:12:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Meanwhile, the officer has a check run on the guy’s information, and finds that he’s not actually the kid’s grandfather. How would that work? Do the police have access the Vital Statistics all over the world, so they know exactly who his children are, and who their children are? Besides, I have children, and nieces and nephews, who are no blood relation; I have in-laws who are no relation by marriage. If their is no legal common term for de facto relationship, people will use socially common term for the connection. ---
**Author:** ![raindrop](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/74df32/32.png) [@raindrop](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindrop)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/207 "2008-11-16T06:51:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > First, what business is it of any but the emergency services how many cops reply to a call? Is it somehow a “violation of rights” that three cops answered when one would do? I do not get why this is even relevant. Maybe they just call whoever is closest, and three answered. I once called the cops because a neighbor repeatedly blocked my driveway. I wanted to know what I should do to resolve the issue once and for all, whether the car could be towed, etc. Three cops showed up to answer the call. I told them I probably didn’t need all 3 of them to answer my questions, that it wasn’t a dire emergency. They said sometimes it just happens like that, like it was more of a coincidence that they all converged at once. We all ended up joking and laughing, had a very nice chat. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/208 "2008-11-16T17:14:54Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > But she’s not solving a case. She’s trying to determine if there IS a case. And yes, you get about 60 seconds for that because we’re all presumed to be innocent in this country. If she can’t see, touch, smell, hear or taste something suspicious enough to make her think a crime has been committed in those seconds, then there’s no case to be solved. > > And the one thing you’re expressly \*forbidden \*to use as “suspicious” is the person exercising their constitutional rights. Not answering can \*\*not \*\*be used as probable cause in court. > > Yes, this means some bad guys get away in the middle of committing a subtle crime. But we’ve decided that’s better than a system in which good guys get thrown into jail for looking at an officer funny. I’ve been following this thread for a while, and decided to have a look at what the actual legal situation is. In this situation, we are missing a vital piece of information - namely, what exactly prompted the 911 call in the first place. This isn’t a case of the cops stopping a random person on the street, but one of responding to a citizen’s call. We do not know what prompted that call. Thus, I agree with you - merely standing on your rights is not, in and of itself, cause for suspicion; but that wasn’t the cause for suspicion in the first place. We don’t know what that was. To hypothesize - say you observe an old White fellow dragging a screaming little Black girl out of a playground. You saw the girl playing there before but not with the old guy - you suspect he’s a stranger and you are witnessing an abduction. Alarmed, you call 911. By the time the cops show up, the girl is calm and appears happy. The guy refuses to say who the girl is and what his relationship with her is. This strikes me as a different situation than simply accosting a fellow walking down the street. It may not appear to be different to the old guy, of course, but that is because he doesn’t know (and nor do we) why exactly the cops became involved. He’s lept to the conclusion that he’s being persecuted because of race. In this situation, it is I think going to be a judgment call whether or not the cops take it further, based on the demeanor of the old fellow and his apparent relationship with the little girl. While “standing up for his rights” isn’t in itself cause for suspicion, that cause (whatever it was) may already exist - and the question is whether there is sufficient evidence to _allay_ that suspicion, to demonstrate that the original suspicions were groundless. “Probable cause” is necessary for an “arrest” but not for a so-called “Terry stop”. All that is necessary for a “Terry stop” is “reasonable suspicion”: [http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police\_stops.html#Q1](http://www.expertlaw.com/library/criminal/police_stops.html#Q1) > [@](#): > > Can The Police Stop And Question People Who Are Not Under Arrest? > > Yes. The police can stop a person, and ask questions, without “arresting” the person. Upon seeing suspicious activity, the police may perform what is called a “Terry Stop,” and may temporarily detain people to request that they identify themselves **and to question them about the suspicious activity.** [emphasis added] “Terry stop” recently reaffirmed by SC: > **[DePeiza: SJC Affirms Terry Stop Based On Police Training And Experience](https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/trials-amp-appeals-amp-compensation/57920/depeiza-sjc-affirms-terry-stop-based-on-police-training-and-experience)** > > Many criminal prosecutions arise from evidence recovered by police during unplanned street encounters with citizens. Such "threshold inquiries"; or Terry stops are standard investigative techniques employed by law enforcement after the Supreme... Note in this case that merely walking funny can give rise to “reasonable suspicion”: > [@](#): > > Because the defendant’s conduct was consistent with non-criminal behavior, the Court acknowledged the question was close but ruled “[s]eemingly innocent activities taken together can give rise to reasonable suspicion justifying a threshold inquiry.” In so holding, the Court accorded greater deference to police testimony that the area had experienced “a recent increase in incidents of firearm violence” and that police reaction to the defendant’s distinctive walk was proper because it “was not a mere hunch, but was the result of the application of their experience and training at the police academy to their detailed observations of the defendant.” Unlike the Appeals Court, the SJC found the defendant’s continuing effort to conceal his right side from view gave rise to an actionable suspicion that his probable possession of a firearm was unlawful rather than lawful. Note that a “Terry stop” may, if sufficiently detailed, be based on an anonymous 911 call providing the cops with sufficent “resaonable suspicion”: [http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/11483816-1.html](http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/legal-services-litigation/11483816-1.html) This is particularly true when the tipster’s information discloses a potential “emergency”: > **[Details & Emergency Justify Terry Stop Based on Anonymous Tip](http://circuit4.blogspot.com/2007/03/details-emergency-justify-terry-stop.html)** > > US v. Elston : Police in Roanoke, VA, received a 911 call from a woman reporting that a man named "Jimmy" (Elston) had just left her home ... - certainly, a potential child abduction would qualify as an “emergency”. In this case, we don’t know what the basis of suspicion was - but having been allerted by a 911 call, a guilty demeanor or other clues can, in a proper case, give rise to a sufficient “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity (child abduction) sufficient to trigger an inquiry short of arrest (though of course merely standing up for one’s rights is not in itself a “guilty demeanor” - but sweating, refusing to look officers in the eye, etc. may well be). Then, should that inquiry establish facts sufficient to establish “probable cause”, an arrest may follow. In short, under US law the cops may well have had every right to ask their questions - depending on the content of the 911 call. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/209 "2008-11-16T17:40:47Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In this case, we don’t know what the basis of suspicion was - but having been allerted by a 911 call, a guilty demeanor or other clues can, in a proper case, give rise to a sufficient “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity (child abduction) sufficient to trigger an inquiry short of arrest (though of course merely standing up for one’s rights is not in itself a “guilty demeanor” - but sweating, refusing to look officers in the eye, etc. may well be). Then, should that inquiry establish facts sufficient to establish “probable cause”, an arrest may follow. > > In short, under US law the cops may well have had every right to ask their questions - depending on the content of the 911 call. Absolutely! I agree 100%, and I’m not sure why you think we disagree (unless you just quoted my post because it was the convenient one.) Demeanor, body position, and the sweats are all \*observable \*things. They would clearly fall under “If she [can] see, touch, smell, hear or taste something suspicious enough to make her think a crime has been committed in those seconds, then [there is] case to be solved.” (negatives removed for clarity) In your scenario, she does see and smell something suspicious enough to continue, I agree. But that’s moving the goalposts of the discussion: we’ve been arguing whether or not someone NOT ANSWERING a direct question about his relationship to the child is suspicious enough to continue. It’s not, because it’s a legally protected right. All those other things that you mention may ALSO be present, or they may not. If they are, then quite possibly a judge would rule that the cop was in the right, as your cites show. But they’re not what we’ve been talking about, nor do we have any way of knowing whether they were present in the scenario under discussion. To bring them into the discussion moves us well into the realm of hypothetical and away from the OP, since they weren’t mentioned at all. (In other words: “assuming facts not in evidence, your honor.”) ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/210 "2008-11-16T17:51:08Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Absolutely! I agree 100%, and I’m not sure why you think we disagree (unless you just quoted my post because it was the convenient one.) Demeanor, body position, and the sweats are all \*observable \*things. They would clearly fall under “If she [can] see, touch, smell, hear or taste something suspicious enough to make her think a crime has been committed in those seconds, then [there is] case to be solved.” (negatives removed for clarity) In your scenario, she does see and smell something suspicious enough to continue, I agree. > > But that’s moving the goalposts of the discussion: we’ve been arguing whether or not someone NOT ANSWERING a direct question about his relationship to the child is suspicious enough to continue. It’s not, because it’s a legally protected right. All those other things that you mention may ALSO be present, or they may not. If they are, then quite possibly a judge would rule that the cop was in the right, as your cites show. But they’re not what we’ve been talking about, nor do we have any way of knowing whether they were present in the scenario under discussion. To bring them into the discussion moves us well into the realm of hypothetical and away from the OP, since they weren’t mentioned at all. (In other words: “assuming facts not in evidence, your honor.”) You are correct that we are mostly in agreement and I responded to your post because it was convenient - we do not disagree that simply “standing on one’s rights” is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion. Where we disagree on, is what the OP is all about. The issue in the OP, it strikes me, is whether or not the cops were justified either legally or ethically in doing what they did. So far, in the many discussions on the issue, no-one to my knowledge has yet mentioned the legal framework other than in general terms. I may be missing it of course, but to my casual review no-one has mentioned the “Terry stop” principles, which I think are those in issue. The OP stated: > [@](#): > > Now, of course the police are free to initiate a consensual encounter with any citizen at any time. The touchstone of a consensual encounter is, of course, that the citizen is free to disregard the police and proceed about his business. The moment that’s no longer true, the Fourth Amendment is implicated and the police must able to justify their suspicions. > > (The police, in my view, will very often walk down both sides of this street; they will project a commanding presence that makes the ordinary citizen feel as though he has no choice but to remain, and then, should evidence of a crime be revealed, claim piously in court that the citizen was free to leave at any time.) > > So – is there any reason to hear either “white man walking down the street holding black toddler’s hand” or “black man walking down the street holding white toddler’s hand” and believe there’s probable cause that a crime is being committed, or even reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime? > > My view is: no. But perhaps an argument can be made for erring on the side of caution and protecting the child by investigating. If anyone thinks there is, I’d like to hear it. To my mind, the cases reveal that the OP is mistaken in two of his assumptions: 1. there is indeed a “middle way” between a “consensual encounter”, which the public is “free to disregard”, and an _arrest_ under US law. That “middle way” is known as a “Terry stop”. ---
**Author:** ![WhyNot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c77e96/32.png) [@WhyNot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WhyNot)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/211 "2008-11-16T17:59:01Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > So far, in the many discussions on the issue, no-one to my knowledge has yet mentioned the legal framework other than in general terms. I may be missing it of course, but to my casual review no-one has mentioned the “Terry stop” principles, which I think are those in issue. > > The OP stated: > > > [@](#): > > > > Now, of course the police are free to initiate a consensual encounter with any citizen at any time. The touchstone of a consensual encounter is, of course, that the citizen is free to disregard the police and proceed about his business. The moment that’s no longer true, the Fourth Amendment is implicated and the police must able to justify their suspicions. > > > > (The police, in my view, will very often walk down both sides of this street; they will project a commanding presence that makes the ordinary citizen feel as though he has no choice but to remain, and then, should evidence of a crime be revealed, claim piously in court that the citizen was free to leave at any time.) > > > > So – is there any reason to hear either “white man walking down the street holding black toddler’s hand” or “black man walking down the street holding white toddler’s hand” and believe there’s probable cause that a crime is being committed, **or even reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime**? > > > > My view is: no. But perhaps an argument can be made for erring on the side of caution and protecting the child by investigating. If anyone thinks there is, I’d like to hear it. > > To my mind, the cases reveal that the OP is mistaken in two of his assumptions: > > 1. there is indeed a “middle way” between a “consensual encounter”, which the public is “free to disregard”, and an _arrest_ under US law. > > That “middle way” is known as a “Terry stop”. (bolding, of course, mine.) Isn’t “articulabe suspicion” the phrase most often used when referring to a Terry stop? Less than “probable cause”, more than “a tingle in my spine”? I thought the OP alluded, obliquely, to Terry stops by using that phrase. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/212 "2008-11-16T18:05:35Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > Absolutely! I agree 100%, and I’m not sure why you think we disagree (unless you just quoted my post because it was the convenient one.) Demeanor, body position, and the sweats are all \*observable \*things. They would clearly fall under “If she [can] see, touch, smell, hear or taste something suspicious enough to make her think a crime has been committed in those seconds, then [there is] case to be solved.” (negatives removed for clarity) In your scenario, she does see and smell something suspicious enough to continue, I agree. > > But that’s moving the goalposts of the discussion: we’ve been arguing whether or not someone NOT ANSWERING a direct question about his relationship to the child is suspicious enough to continue. It’s not, because it’s a legally protected right. All those other things that you mention may ALSO be present, or they may not. If they are, then quite possibly a judge would rule that the cop was in the right, as your cites show. But they’re not what we’ve been talking about, nor do we have any way of knowing whether they were present in the scenario under discussion. To bring them into the discussion moves us well into the realm of hypothetical and away from the OP, since they weren’t mentioned at all. (In other words: “assuming facts not in evidence, your honor.”) You are correct that we are mostly in agreement and I responded to your post because it was convenient - we do not disagree that simply “standing on one’s rights” is not, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion. Where we disagree on, is what the OP is all about. The issue in the OP, it strikes me, is whether or not the cops were justified either legally or ethically in doing what they did. So far, in the many discussions on the issue, no-one to my knowledge has yet mentioned the legal framework other than in general terms. I may be missing it of course, but to my casual review no-one has mentioned the “Terry stop” principles, which I think are those in issue. The OP stated: > [@](#): > > Now, of course the police are free to initiate a consensual encounter with any citizen at any time. The touchstone of a consensual encounter is, of course, that the citizen is free to disregard the police and proceed about his business. The moment that’s no longer true, the Fourth Amendment is implicated and the police must able to justify their suspicions. > > (The police, in my view, will very often walk down both sides of this street; they will project a commanding presence that makes the ordinary citizen feel as though he has no choice but to remain, and then, should evidence of a crime be revealed, claim piously in court that the citizen was free to leave at any time.) > > So – is there any reason to hear either “white man walking down the street holding black toddler’s hand” or “black man walking down the street holding white toddler’s hand” and believe there’s probable cause that a crime is being committed, or even reasonable, articulable suspicion of a crime? > > My view is: no. But perhaps an argument can be made for erring on the side of caution and protecting the child by investigating. If anyone thinks there is, I’d like to hear it. To my mind, the cases reveal two issues raised by the OP: 1. There is indeed a “middle way” between a “consensual encounter”, which the public is “free to disregard”, and an _arrest_ under US law. That “middle way” is known as a “Terry stop”. The test is the lower one of “reasonable suspicion”, not the higher one of “probable cause”. In a “Terry stop” the police are entitled to ask questions concering both your name and what you are doing - they need not have “probable cause” for arrest. 1. The issue is not whether a person of race 1 walking down the street holding the hand of person 2 is creating either reasonable suspicion or probable cause; it is whether whatever was told to the 911 dispatcher created “reasonable suspicion”. We cannot simply ignore the 911 call for the purposes of the OP, because that creates a totally different scenario - one in which there was no 911 call. We do not know of course what was told to the 911 dispatcher. So the answer to the OP must be that ‘depending on what was told to the 911 dispatcher, it would appear that the police acted properly’. In summary, there is nothing _on its face_ to indicate that the police acted improperly. They have the legal ability to do so (the “Terry stop”), but what we do not know is if they had sufficient facts told to them through the 911 call to raise a reasonable suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/213 "2008-11-16T18:06:39Z")
-please see post above - this was posted in error before I finished writing it. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/214 "2008-11-16T18:08:07Z")
> [@WhyNot](#): > > (bolding, of course, mine.) > > Isn’t “articulabe suspicion” the phrase most often used when referring to a Terry stop? Less than “probable cause”, more than “a tingle in my spine”? I thought the OP alluded, obliquely, to Terry stops by using that phrase. Please see more fulsome answer above. The post you quoted was posted in error, before I finished composing it. ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/215 "2008-11-16T20:57:14Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Please see more fulsome answer above. The post you quoted was posted in error, before I finished composing it. Fulsome you do not mean. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2008, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/216 "2008-11-16T21:11:59Z")
> [@Carson\_O\_Genic](#): > > Fulsome you do not mean. 😕 Why not? Doesn’t fulsome mean generous, abundant, and well developed? Mind you [this](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/03_03/HOLLY2203XPO_468x706.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-542289/I-wont-ditch-THOSE-dresses-vows-Holly.html&usg=__sEJlh_icov5RMEi73HdqG2LgHu4=&h=706&w=468&sz=45&hl=en&start=2&sig2=XgUi5RdhbUCAY-UgbZ15Tw&um=1&tbnid=ns7i876aPIT_IM:&tbnh=140&tbnw=93&ei=I4wgScuFBo-aNeqFkd8J&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfulsome%2Bfigure%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DG) is the context I think of it in! > [@](#): > > the presenter reveals too much of her fulsome figure… 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/217 "2008-11-17T00:06:47Z")
> [@Carson\_O\_Genic](#): > > Fulsome you do not mean. I don’t? 😕 “Fulsome” in the sense of “comprehensive” = perfectly understandable and acceptable usage, I’m obviously not disparaging _myself_. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Carson\_O\_Genic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cdc98d/32.png) [@Carson\_O\_Genic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carson_O_Genic)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/218 "2008-11-17T10:26:51Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I don’t? 😕 > > “Fulsome” in the sense of “comprehensive” = perfectly understandable and acceptable usage, I’m obviously not disparaging _myself_. 😛 ``` I offer somewhat of an apology. After poking about, a more positive connotation was found, essentially, "abundant". Unlike my good will, the apology is limited since the common usage implies insincerity, lack of tact, a buttery or unctuous flattery- none of which apply to your posts here. I was unaware of the word's ambiguity- ``` “It is important to recognize that common usage tends toward the negative connotation, and using fulsome as in the primary definition may lead to confusion without contextual prompts.” ---
**Author:** ![Lust4Life](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ecc23a/32.png) [@Lust4Life](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lust4Life)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/219 "2008-11-17T12:29:43Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > I suspect there’s sexism mixed in here too. If it had been a grandmother with her grandson, or both had been the same gender, I don’t think the scenario is so likely to have happened. Part of the problem is worrying about men molesting little girls, and the race difference just makes that a bit worse. My first thought on reading this was that this was ageism in action. Somebody reported seeing an old man with a little girl and in these paranoid times suspected a paedophile. Can you imagine the reaction if the the police had laughed this one off and taken no further action and it turned out that it WAS a bona fide case of child molestation? The grandfather didn’t help with his non cooperation/martyr complex when he could have saved police wasting their time and get on with some real work and also saved his grandchild from what was a potentially scarring event. I’m not being a hypocrite here. I myself am a burly bloke,a little bit battered looking and could look like a yob to someone who doesn’t know me. Once when going to work I passed a row of cars that had been broken into. I stopped(Was cycling) and rang the police to report it and while I did so several cars passed by me. Someone obviously thought that I was the culprit and also rang the police to report ME believing that I was the culprit. I was actually told this by the operator while speaking to her. I didn’t feel offended or get up on my high horse but was glad that there were people around who didn’t just pass by without doing anything when they saw what they thought was a crime going on. This silly old fart just wasted everyones time. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2008, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348/220 "2008-11-17T14:30:03Z")
> [@Carson\_O\_Genic](#): > > I offer somewhat of an apology. After poking about, a more positive connotation was found, essentially, “abundant”. > Unlike my good will, the apology is limited since the common usage implies insincerity, lack of tact, a buttery or unctuous flattery- none of which apply to your posts here. > I was unaware of the word’s ambiguity- > “It is important to recognize that common usage tends toward the negative connotation, and using fulsome as in the primary definition may lead to confusion without contextual prompts.” I guess you are not offering a “fulsome” apology? 😉 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/youre-being-detained-sir-for-babysitting-someone-of-a-different-race/472348.md?page=12)