Perhaps, Let's Try Again
My position:
1. RAS of criminal activity is required for a (valid) Terry Stop.
2. RAS of possession of a concealed weapon (or some other contraband) is required for a minimal search (pat down).
3. RAS of an item detected being contraband is required for a more extensive search (such as reaching into pockets).
Each of these actions stands on its own as to validity but must be supported by the previous step. You cannot get to 2 without 1, 3 without 2.
If you agree, we're in synch. If not, then provide a citations to refute what I have said. My position is based on Terry, a case with which you are familiar and its progeny. In particular, Michgan v. Long with regard to car interiors.
Looked at another way, a valid Terry Stop, without additional RAS, does not authorize any search, whether a pat down, hands in pocket or car interior. Now the RAS that justified the detention may, as in Terry, include factors that slop over into stage 2. That is why stopping a suspect of apple theft is different than that of one of armed robbery. Lack of RAS is also why detaining an OC'er (as opposed to a cleverly disguised voluntary interaction) solely for the act of OC is illegimate. You must remember that prior to Terry, a LEO could have all the RAS in the world but could not (at least in theory) detain a citizen. SCOTUS thought RAS was the way to go. Opinions vary. There is no decision that permits a LEO to search a detainee (much less an voluntary encounteree) for weapons as a routine matter for "officer safety."
My position:
1. RAS of criminal activity is required for a (valid) Terry Stop.
2. RAS of possession of a concealed weapon (or some other contraband) is required for a minimal search (pat down).
3. RAS of an item detected being contraband is required for a more extensive search (such as reaching into pockets).
Each of these actions stands on its own as to validity but must be supported by the previous step. You cannot get to 2 without 1, 3 without 2.
If you agree, we're in synch. If not, then provide a citations to refute what I have said. My position is based on Terry, a case with which you are familiar and its progeny. In particular, Michgan v. Long with regard to car interiors.
Looked at another way, a valid Terry Stop, without additional RAS, does not authorize any search, whether a pat down, hands in pocket or car interior. Now the RAS that justified the detention may, as in Terry, include factors that slop over into stage 2. That is why stopping a suspect of apple theft is different than that of one of armed robbery. Lack of RAS is also why detaining an OC'er (as opposed to a cleverly disguised voluntary interaction) solely for the act of OC is illegimate. You must remember that prior to Terry, a LEO could have all the RAS in the world but could not (at least in theory) detain a citizen. SCOTUS thought RAS was the way to go. Opinions vary. There is no decision that permits a LEO to search a detainee (much less an voluntary encounteree) for weapons as a routine matter for "officer safety."
