Terry Stop

This is a discussion on Terry Stop within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill, H.R. 822, which would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in ...

Results 1 to 10 of 10
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By MitchellCT

Thread: Terry Stop

  1. #1
    Member Array GHFLRLTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    241

    Terry Stop

    The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill, H.R. 822, which would allow any person with a valid state-issued concealed firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed firearm permits, or that does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms for lawful purposes. A state's laws governing where concealed firearms may be carried would apply within its borders. The bill applies to D.C., Puerto Rico and U.S. territories. It would not create a federal licensing system; rather, it would require the states to recognize each others' carry permits, just as they recognize drivers' licenses and carry permits held by armored car guards might just make it this time.

    In certain "Peoples Republics, such as NJ, NY, and of course NYC, there will be a culture shock for the LEO's.

    My goal here is to get the information and explaination of a Terry Stop-

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In the United States, a Terry stop is a brief detention of a person by police[1] on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

    The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity;[3] the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”.[4] When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.

    To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed.[5] Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”,[6] and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.[7]

    The search of the suspect’s outer garments, also known as a patdown, must be limited to what is necessary to discover weapons;[8] however, pursuant to the “plain feel” doctrine, police may seize contraband discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the contraband’s identity is immediately apparent.[9]

    In some jurisdictions, persons detained under the doctrine of Terry must identify themselves to police upon request. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177, the Court held that a Nevada statute requiring such identification did not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, or, in the circumstances of that case, the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self incrimination.
    What I am hoping to start here is a discussion with sources to get us ready for the day when this law will give us the ability to carry everywhere in the USA - except Wisconson (soon to change, I expect) and Illinois (Maybe).

    We may have to go state by state with this.

    Personally I am looking forward to this for at least 2 reasons:

    1. I can not wait to drive through Maryland on the way north from Florida to Pennsylvania.
    2. Having worked in NYC and had to leave my traveling companion back in Florida, I can not wait to get off a plane at JFK or La Guardia or Newark, and know where I can load up after I pick up my traveling companion at the arrival luggage carousel.

    My objective is to get the information out so we can all internalize it for the places we expect to be outside our home states.
    George H. Foster
    Orlando, Florida

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array Hiram25's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Wyoming, DE
    Posts
    10,963
    Hope it goes through, will give private citizens the same range of carry that LEOSA does for active/retired LEO's now.
    Hiram25
    You can educate ignorance, you can't fix stupid
    Retired DE Trooper, SA XD40 SC, S&W 2" Airweight
    dukalmighty & Pure Kustom Black Ops Pro "Trooper" Holsters, DE CCDW and LEOSA Permits, Vietnam Vet 68-69 Pleiku

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Eagleks's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    7,624
    I'm for keeping the Fedl Govt out of it, once there becomes a Fedl law, they can modify it, change it, amend it, or create a registry in it.
    Remember the $105 billion they put in the healthcare bill to fund it, hoping Congress never caught on that it was there.

    The ATF was originally only to collect Alcohol taxes. Look where that has gone.
    I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
    Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array Chad Rogers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Metro DC
    Posts
    958
    I don't see this proposed legislation seeing the light of day. So I do not have my hopes up.

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    7,904
    There is already a thread running here.
    National Reciprocity Action Needed
    And I do not think you will get much support for this bill..

    I don't want it.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  7. #6
    JD
    JD is offline
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    19,188
    Perhaps I'm missing something, but what information are you looking for and what's the connection between Terry stops and national carry?

  8. #7
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,659
    I'm pretty must lost on the connection too.

    And this bill, while nice in theory, is a really bad idea.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  9. #8
    Member Array GHFLRLTD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Orlando, Florida
    Posts
    241

    Why Talk About The Terry Stop

    When the law takes affect, and the possibility of that happening is much greater than it was when Pelosi was in charge, it will put all of us who carry and want to carry in places like NYC in a new environment.

    We will not be just meeting with LEO's who know our local cultures, or carrying on receprocity in states where CCW is not unique for average citizens, but in places where it legally existed, but in practice was not allowed for us average law-abiding types. NYC - Bloombergville - will be in a situation where there is not about 2,500 people not LEO's (or retired LEO's) packing, but millions of people who have these permits, and can now travel and pack there legally.

    We need to get prepared to deal with this before hand. This is like what all of us do in our home states, and in states where we regularly visit - for where/how carry is permitted.

    This is to prepare to deal with the potential "Little Hitlers" that we might run into. It would get us ready to immediately notice questionable behavor, and ask for Officer Un-Friendly's Supervisor.

    There is a second element of this kind of event called Stop and Frisk. Bob Herbert, who is about the biggest gun banner there is, writes for the New York Times about the 1000's of these demeaning stops, which involve the young and minorities.

    I do not want one of us who served honorably in Iraq or Afganistan get killed, because they are young and a minority. For that matter, they might just shoot olde geezers like me (63) who are white...
    George H. Foster
    Orlando, Florida

  10. #9
    VIP Member Array MitchellCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    I don't post here anymore...Sorry
    Posts
    2,333
    #1 Your source material on Terry Stop information is highly suspect.

    Wikipedia is NOT an acceptable source of information upon which to base any research or discussion of depth beyond which porn stars are second amendment advocates. (Bree Olsen - Support Pro-RKBA bad girls. I hear she likes Big, Black...Glocks. Dirty, Dirty thing...)

    #2 If you actually want to do research on Terry Stops, you need to check out a Constitutional Law Textbook at a undergraduate level Criminal Justice Class (at the least...) or search online for law review articles.

    Law review articles are scholarship that are written by law students, professors or alumni of law schools, peer reviewed and published as works which can be cited as legitimate reference works for other court matters.

    See: http://www.michiganlawreview.org/ass...05/7/goetz.pdf starting at section II - The Interplay Between Outward Innocence
    and Reasonable Suspicion


    Yes, the main thrust of the article is how a Terry Stop relates to meth manufacturing; however, that's because Terry Stops are used in police-criminal interactions, and if you want to understand police-criminal interactions, you don't generally look to how cops interact with "normal people", but with scum [removed] like meth monkeys, burglars and other assorted wonderful people.

    Now - Let's look at Terry Stops from some actual scholarship:

    II. The Interplay Between Outward Innocence and Reasonable Suspicion
    In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court relied upon the Fourth Amendment’s
    prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures53 to develop the
    standard of reasonable suspicion for police officers making a limited investigatory
    stop short of an arrest.54 These investigatory stops, also known as
    Terry stops, differ “from full-fledged arrests requiring probable cause on the
    one hand and no-seizure police encounters requiring no justification whatsoever
    on the other.”55 At one end of the spectrum, arrests require probable
    cause; at the other end, no-seizure police encounters require no justification.
    56 In the middle are investigatory stops, more limited intrusions
    requiring reasonable suspicion—a lesser degree of suspicion than the probable
    cause that arrests require.57 As the Court announced in Terry, “in
    justifying [this] particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point
    to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences
    from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”58
    The concept of outward innocence arises in two distinct ways in applying
    the reasonable suspicion standard. First, for a given fact pattern,
    although each specific event, in isolation, often appears outwardly innocent,
    the fact pattern as a whole may still meet the threshold for reasonable suspicion.
    The facts in Terry fit this description:
    [Officer McFadden] observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series
    of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together
    warranted further investigation. There is nothing unusual in two men
    standing together on a street corner, perhaps waiting for someone. Nor is
    there anything suspicious about people in such circumstances strolling up
    and down the street, singly or in pairs. Store windows, moreover, are made
    to be looked in. But the story is quite different where, as here, two men
    hover about a street corner for an extended period of time, at the end of
    which it becomes apparent that they are not waiting for anyone or anything;
    where these men pace alternately along an identical route, pausing
    to stare in the same store window roughly 24 times; where each completion
    of this route is followed immediately by a conference between the two
    men on the corner; where they are joined in one of these conferences by a
    third man who leaves swiftly; and where the two men finally follow the
    third and rejoin him a couple of blocks away.59

    In subsequent cases, the Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance
    of the “totality of the circumstances”60 and rejected a “divide-and conquer”
    61 analysis. For instance, in United States v. Sokolow,62 the Court
    recognized that “[a]ny one of the[] factors [observed by the police] is not by
    itself proof of any illegal conduct and is quite consistent with innocent
    [conduct]. But . . . taken together they amount to reasonable suspicion.”63

    Even more pointedly, in United States v. Arvizu, the Court held:
    The [lower] court’s evaluation and rejection of seven of the listed factors in
    isolation from each other does not take into account the “totality of the circumstances,”
    as our cases have understood that phrase. The court appeared
    to believe that each observation by [the law enforcement agent] that was
    by itself readily susceptible to an innocent explanation was entitled to “no
    weight.” Terry, however, precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis
    . . . . Although each of the series of acts [in Terry] was “perhaps
    innocent in itself,” we held that, taken together, they “warranted further investigation.”


    Read further in the article before posting more on this issue.

    Not to be a complete ... about things, but I'm not going to post in a discussion that goes off the wall into any of the following:

    Personally held theories of constitutional law unsupported by reality;
    Discussions guided by wikipedia referenced information;
    Sovereign citizen garbage;

    Or anything that goes off into left field...or right field for that matter.

    If you read the article with a critical mind, you will see how the article tells the reader how the police should act, and how the courts will respond, to police-citizen interactions.

    So.

    Read the article. Digest it, then ask questions on the subject that are based off the scholarship presented, or find other scholarship for the rest of us to read and question.

    If we do that, we can have a profitable discussion.

    If not, well.

    Ya'll have fun, but do it without me.
    Last edited by JD; March 20th, 2011 at 07:29 PM. Reason: language
    oneshot likes this.

  11. #10
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,659
    Enough is enough and we have enough of the tin foil this week.
    "Just blame Sixto"

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

consequence for bad terry stop
,
constitutional law terry stop
,
florida terry stop
,
maryland terry stop
,

new jersey terry stop

,

nj terry stop

,
terry and second amendment
,
terry stop
,
terry stop in nj
,

terry stop maryland

,

terry stop new jersey

,

terry stop nj

Click on a term to search for related topics.