Terry v Ohio: how the court defines reasonable suspicion? Is there really a certain way to demonstrate reas. SUS.?
So there is a problem with TVO. I think it has to do with reas. SUS. but I do not understand the language and what the case is saying about him. And there really a way to determine reas. Her? I'm very confused about this argument to do and if it's good or bad (how they made the argument (I think its bad?)). And this argument is pro-freedom or the order (I assume that order). Please help.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) was a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, which held that the prohibition of the Fourth Amendment of records and arbitrary detention was not violated when a police officer stopped a suspect on the street and searched him without probable cause to arrest. The Court held that police may briefly detain a person if you have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. Due to significant interest in the protecting the safety of police officers, police can perform a quick search of the surface of the outer clothing for weapons if they have someone suspicion that the detained person is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not just on a hunch officer. This subsequently allowed police action has been contemplated in the short run and stop a "and record" or simply a "Terry stop." The Terry standard was later extended the temporary detention of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops. The rationale for the decision of the Supreme Court Justice revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect people from unreasonable searches and seizures to obtain evidence, searches and seizures for other purposes (such as crime prevention or protection staff of police officers).
Rea Pro Racing Season 2009/2010 - Round 05 - Barcelona, Spain
 |
