Terry stops

[4sarge]

Hey CarmelHP, sorry it took me so long to get back, this big boy needed a nap!

Ok, please understand that everything is situational and VERY dependant on that situation. It's kind of like one of those "choose your adventure" books I used to read as a kid. If this happen you go here, if this happens then go here.

We'll start with the obvious, stop and ID the kid, ask him where they are going, where they have been. I am looking at his physical appearance (is he sweating heavy, are his shoes wet and grassy) see if those answers make sense.

If he says he's going home after playing guitar hero at a friends house, then call his parents to come pick him up (especially if he's a juvenile). If his ID puts him living at 32/Guilford and he can't come up with a real good reason for being there other that he was at a friends house but can't remember his name, we have problems.

Did we get any calls on him walking, or did I just come across him?

I think any reasonable person can see that there are too many variables to just spout off an answer to the question of "What next"

My short answer is check him out. Do I have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot? In one of the cases above yes I do. In the other, not really but I also have an obligation to the community and the parents/juvenile to make sure they get home safely. So in the other, assuming it is a juvenile (under 18) then they would be "detained" long enough for a parent to come get them and take responsibility for them. So even though no criminal activity is afoot, once again the Supreme Court has given us outlines when we may detain someone for a "community caretaker" function. This cleary fits that description.

I believe that yes, I do understand and practice good Terry stop techniques.

CarmelHP - if you are trolling for some Nazi like answer to get all huffy about, then you had better look elsewhere.

Good Explanation

 

[fpdshooter]

No defensiveness here brother, it is just too broad a question. It is comprable to asking "What do you do if someone is shooting at you?" Kind depends on the circumstances a bit.

Again it depends on a whole host of other facts. What does is body language say, is he sweating, have we gotten other calls on it, have we or surrounding agencies had a lot of thefts in the area, does his backpack look like it is carrying more weight the it should for what he is doing, etc..

I just simply cannot answer your questions without exploring all of these. Does that make sense? I certainly am not dodging the question, there isn't enough info there to support any answer.

I guess the quick answer is if he completely refuses to answer any questions or refuses to give ID, then he, just extended his detention until I can do a bit more sorting out the facts. I'd call for a few more cars to quickly look around the area for thefts, etc. Obviusly if we've had calls of a suspicious person in the area this would go to the totality of the circumstances as well.

Terry is a grey area and this set of circumstances is even more muddy.

 

[Episcopus]

Hey CarmelHP, sorry it took me so long to get back, this big boy needed a nap!

Ok, please understand that everything is situational and VERY dependant on that situation. It's kind of like one of those "choose your adventure" books I used to read as a kid. If this happen you go here, if this happens then go here.

We'll start with the obvious, stop and ID the kid, ask him where they are going, where they have been. I am looking at his physical appearance (is he sweating heavy, are his shoes wet and grassy) see if those answers make sense.

If he says he's going home after playing guitar hero at a friends house, then call his parents to come pick him up (especially if he's a juvenile). If his ID puts him living at 32/Guilford and he can't come up with a real good reason for being there other that he was at a friends house but can't remember his name, we have problems.

Did we get any calls on him walking, or did I just come across him?

I think any reasonable person can see that there are too many variables to just spout off an answer to the question of "What next"

My short answer is check him out. Do I have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot? In one of the cases above yes I do. In the other, not really but I also have an obligation to the community and the parents/juvenile to make sure they get home safely. So in the other, assuming it is a juvenile (under 18) then they would be "detained" long enough for a parent to come get them and take responsibility for them. So even though no criminal activity is afoot, once again the Supreme Court has given us outlines when we may detain someone for a "community caretaker" function. This cleary fits that description.

I believe that yes, I do understand and practice good Terry stop techniques.

CarmelHP - if you are trolling for some Nazi like answer to get all huffy about, then you had better look elsewhere.

If you turned an arrest report or warrant request in to me that had the basis for the interaction as "wearing dark clothes and carrying a backpack at night," I would find no PC on it without even reading far enough to find out what he did. I genuinely hope that you don't stop people for walking around at night.

A Terry Stop requires you to be able to point to specific things in the person's conduct that lead you to believe that criminal activity was, is, or is about to be afoot. You cannot fish, and you cannot act upon hunches.

 

[Episcopus]

What about Protecting and Serving the Constitution. Or are the members of the Military the only ones for whom that duty falls. The lines are getting very very blurry on what is considered right and wrong in todays society. The Bill of Rights is being destroyed daily, for what? For the security of the masses. Liberty and freedom are what is being stolen.

Do you dislike the concept of Terry Stops, or do you just dislike law enforcement? Terry Stops are a hugely valuable law enforcement tool, and we should be thankful that Terry went the way it did. Did you know that the officer in Terry prevented an armed robbery? He saw two guys nervously pacing back and forth in front of a building. They would take turns, one would walk down and back while the other would watch. When they got back to the corner, they would talk briefly, then the other would go. Finally, they were both moving towards the door, so the officer grabbed one of them, frisked him and got his gun. If the officer hadn't acted the way he did, people may have lost their life that day. The basis and reasoning is the same now.

 

[kludge]

Great thread BTW.

We'll start with the obvious, stop and ID the kid, ask him where they are going, where they have been.

OK, that's a good start... so instead of a kid, I'm a 30-something, not visibly intoxicated, out late walking in Anytown, Indiana, and I just happen to have a knapsack walking home after the late shift, with work clothes in the pack.

1. You start asking those same questions above.

Instead of answering, I ask, "Officer, am I being detained?"

You say, "Let's see some ID."

I repeat the question, "Officer am I being detained?"

Now what?

2. I'm walking down the street, you ask, "Where are you headed tonight?" (It seems like every time I've ever been stopped to a traffic violation, not in the last 13 years though , I'm asked that question.)

I respond, "How can I help you, Officer?"

"Well, you can tell me where your headed."

"Well, it's not really any of your business."

Now what?

3. "Where are you headed?"

I respond, "That way."

"Let's see some ID"

"Am I being detained?"

"I just want to see some ID."

"Am I being detained?"

"Let me see your ID. Now."

(at this point I get the feeling that I'm being detained) and I respond, "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?"

Now what?

edit: PS, since I'm an instructor I get asked these questions, plus, I'd like to know myself.

 

[Episcopus]

Great thread BTW.



OK, that's a good start... so instead of a kid, I'm a 30-something, not visibly intoxicated, out late walking in Anytown, Indiana, and I just happen to have a knapsack walking home after the late shift, with work clothes in the pack.

1. You start asking those same questions above.

Instead of answering, I ask, "Officer, am I being detained?"

You say, "Let's see some ID."

I repeat the question, "Officer am I being detained?"

Now what?

2. I'm walking down the street, you ask, "Where are you headed tonight?" (It seems like every time I've ever been stopped to a traffic violation, not in the last 13 years though , I'm asked that question.)

I respond, "How can I help you, Officer?"

"Well, you can tell me where your headed."

"Well, it's not really any of your business."

Now what?

3. "Where are you headed?"

I respond, "That way."

"Let's see some ID"

"Am I being detained?"

"I just want to see some ID."

"Am I being detained?"

"Let me see your ID. Now."

(at this point I get the feeling that I'm being detained) and I respond, "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?"

Now what?

edit: PS, since I'm an instructor I get asked these questions, plus, I'd like to know myself.

I still want to know how he gets this far:

We'll start with the obvious, stop and ID the kid, ask him where they are going, where they have been. I am looking at his physical appearance (is he sweating heavy, are his shoes wet and grassy) see if those answers make sense.

based upon someone walking down the road at night.

Shouldn't you check him out and see if he is sweating , if he is muddy, if his shoes are wet and all that before you stop him? The quickest way to get an important case tossed is with a bad stop.

 

[fpdshooter]

Sorry guys I was gone for a bit dropping the boat off to get winterized.

Now to the issues at hand, I have to be very careful in answering this as we have two different types of audiences. The LE type (I'm assuming a judge or Pros. office) and the lay person who will get quickly lost when talking about Terry vs consenual encounter.

The scenario I am envisioning is this: Your avergae neighborhood here in Fishers, as that is my point of reference. Middle of the night, guy is seen wearing all dark clothing walking down the street. Walking in an area that does not normally see pedestrain traffic at this time of night. This is all the info we have right now.

So I approach, with no emergency lights activated (these have been found to be a detention by our courts) and simply call out to the guy "Hey partner, what's going on?" If he turns and walks toward me, then this is a consenual encounter, NO DETENTION, he is free to leave at anytime, and I must let him unless I have developed reasonable suspicion.

If when I call out he turns and walks away, at this point, I've got nothing. Unless I can articulate that in this same area we have had numerous, thefts, burglaries, etc. with a person matching the description of the person I have. Then I can esclate this to a stop for a brief detention, no cuffs, no pat down.

This is turning into what I was afraid it would. A very generic situation given to illustrate a point is now being torn apart piece by piece with information that was never presented in the original scenario.

Episcopus - obviously no arrest would be based on just those facts, that is ridiculous! No one here has even mentioned an arrest. Let's please limit this to the topic at hand of Terry Stops. I assume you are on the judicial side of things, then you should know that what we are talking about is consensual contacts (with no reasonable suspicion or PC) and Terry (reasonable suspicion). To this point to arrests, PC, or warrant were mentioned. I believe you are taking this out of context.

As I have stated before to CarmelHP, the Terry Stop is based on a resonable suspicion that crime is affot based on the totality of the circumstances available to the officer at the time of the stop. The fake made up scenario I discussed has too many variables that have not been mentioned to get into a specific debate, discussion about Terry!

 

[fpdshooter]

Great thread BTW.



OK, that's a good start... so instead of a kid, I'm a 30-something, not visibly intoxicated, out late walking in Anytown, Indiana, and I just happen to have a knapsack walking home after the late shift, with work clothes in the pack.

1. You start asking those same questions above.

Instead of answering, I ask, "Officer, am I being detained?"

You say, "Let's see some ID."

I repeat the question, "Officer am I being detained?"

Now what?

2. I'm walking down the street, you ask, "Where are you headed tonight?" (It seems like every time I've ever been stopped to a traffic violation, not in the last 13 years though , I'm asked that question.)

I respond, "How can I help you, Officer?"

"Well, you can tell me where your headed."

"Well, it's not really any of your business."

Now what?

3. "Where are you headed?"

I respond, "That way."

"Let's see some ID"

"Am I being detained?"

"I just want to see some ID."

"Am I being detained?"

"Let me see your ID. Now."

(at this point I get the feeling that I'm being detained) and I respond, "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?"

Now what?

edit: PS, since I'm an instructor I get asked these questions, plus, I'd like to know myself.

Given the facts that you have laid out. No reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot, the officer CAN stop you for a consenual encounter...meaning I see you walking down the street and call out "Hey can I talk to you?" You walk toward me, this is a consenual encounter. The ID, in my opinion is very very grey. Some courts have held that once I have your ID then it is a detention. Our courts have allowed it, as long as the officer knows that he must give it back immediately so that the person feels free to leave at any time! If you refuse to provide ID, and I have nothing else...so be it. That is how it works.

Consensual encounters are a great tool. They can and will help you to develope the resonable suspicion standard, which may in turn lead to probable cause.

I generally will start a consenual encounter with "How are you doing tonight?" or "What's going on?" these are very low key greetings. If they don't want to talk or give you a nasty look and walk away, so be it. Not everybody likes the police. You MUST let them walk away.

Let me see if I can address your specific situation.

1. You start asking those same questions above.

Instead of answering, I ask, "Officer, am I being detained?"

You say, "Let's see some ID."

I repeat the question, "Officer am I being detained?"

Now what?

Nope you are not being detained! You are free to leave at anytime.

2. I'm walking down the street, you ask, "Where are you headed tonight?" (It seems like every time I've ever been stopped to a traffic violation, not in the last 13 years though , I'm asked that question.)

I respond, "How can I help you, Officer?"

"Well, you can tell me where your headed."

"Well, it's not really any of your business."

Now what?

I roll my eyes at you then tell you to have a good night. Again, unless I have reasonable suspicion that crime is afoot, I've got nothing and must allow you to walk away. You can tell me to "**** Off" and I have to just smile and think dirty thoughts about your mom, but I still have to let you walk away!

3. "Where are you headed?"

I respond, "That way."

"Let's see some ID"

"Am I being detained?"

"I just want to see some ID."

"Am I being detained?"

"Let me see your ID. Now."

(at this point I get the feeling that I'm being detained) and I respond, "For suspicion of what crime am I being detained?"

Now what?

In my opinion the officer would be out of line. He is demanding your ID, which would turn this into a detention, You can ask all you want, but he doesn't have to nor probably will tell you why you are being detained. What ever comes out of this will ultimately be dismissed or suppressed in a court hearing.

Remember though, that force cannot be used to resist even an unlawful arrest.

Make sense?

 

[fpdshooter]

I'll be back later, I have to take my wife out to dinner and get my Guinness on!

 

[Episcopus]

Episcopus - obviously no arrest would be based on just those facts, that is ridiculous! No one here has even mentioned an arrest. Let's please limit this to the topic at hand of Terry Stops. I assume you are on the judicial side of things, then you should know that what we are talking about is consensual contacts (with no reasonable suspicion or PC) and Terry (reasonable suspicion). To this point to arrests, PC, or warrant were mentioned. I believe you are taking this out of context.

You know as well as I do that "consensual encounters" and Terry Stops lead to evidence, which leads to arrest and charges. It wasn't a stretch to say so, by any means.

My point was that if one of the officers in my county ever turned in paperwork where the basis for beginning the contact (the consensual encounter or Terry Stop) was that he was walking down the road at night, I would find no PC without reading the charges. At that point, I don't care what they did because I can't win because you screwed up and overstepped your bounds. Any evidence obtained as a result of your "consensual encounter" would be suppressed. You need a reason, or a 'reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot' in order to stop a citizen and question him. Without that, you are going fishing and fishing trips get suppressed. (I disagree with the concept of a "consensual encounter").

But you are right, valid Terry Stops are too fact sensitive to have any meaningful discussion of them using a bare-bones hypothetical, so I am not ripping on you or what you say. I am sure you know how to do your job and you do it properly.

 

[CarmelHP]

See, fpdshooter, nothing to worry about. Your first scenario was devoid of any reasonable suspicion. I, and others, asked some questions and you came up much better answers than you started with. An adult in Fishers at night walking can not give reasonable suspicion without more, and a heavy backpack wouldn't cut it. Looking in car windows? this judge says yes, reasonable suspicion, stepping into yards, yes. Making the description of a suspect in a specific crime, yes. Apparently minding his own business though out of place, no. Extended detention of someone on whom you have no RS while you call surrounding departments trying to fish out something to hang on him after the encounter starts, a big no.

 

[dclaarjr]

Episcopus and fpdshooter,

You seem to be well versed in these matters, so I have a question.

Say you see the same person walking down the street, dark clothes, back pack, 3 AM.... and it is known that there have been break ins in the area and the only description given was an individual in dark clothes carrying something. Does this make a Terry stop reasonable even if this person is not acting suspicious?

 

[kludge]

Thanks! Yes it makes sense. You taking time to answer is much appreciated.

I think your answers are 100% on the money of the way they should be. Maybe I've seen too many COPS episodes, but for whatever reason all of us LTCH people seem to have at least a small fear of ending up face down on the sidewalk with someones knee on our neck.

That said, I've only had one encouter (I tended to drive a bit fast when I was young)where the officer wasn't 110% professional and courteous, maybe it was only 70%, and due to my lifestyle I can't even imagine an encounter that wouldn't be "courtous".

And I've always answered the "where are you headed" question.

 

[indyjoe]

I disagree with the concept of a "consensual encounter".

That is your right. You can make it not happen by not talking and asking if you are being detained. That eliminates the consensual encounter.

 

[Episcopus]

Episcopus and fpdshooter,

You seem to be well versed in these matters, so I have a question.

Say you see the same person walking down the street, dark clothes, back pack, 3 AM.... and it is known that there have been break ins in the area and the only description given was an individual in dark clothes carrying something. Does this make a Terry stop reasonable even if this person is not acting suspicious?

This answer won't make you happy, but it is usually the only answer that can be given when discussing Terry in the hypothetical: maybe.

Break-ins that night? That week? That month? What time frame during the night were the break-ins? How many? How close to that specific spot? Were houses broken into, or cars? What types of things were typically taken.

Reasonable, articulable suspicion is an incredibly low standard, which is why i demand complete compliance with it. It is also incredibly hard to talk about in the abstract or hypothetical. Terry Stops are very, very, very fact sensitive.

 

[CarmelHP]

Episcopus and fpdshooter,

You seem to be well versed in these matters, so I have a question.

Say you see the same person walking down the street, dark clothes, back pack, 3 AM.... and it is known that there have been break ins in the area and the only description given was an individual in dark clothes carrying something. Does this make a Terry stop reasonable even if this person is not acting suspicious?

You didn't ask me, but I think this is likely within Terry. You now have articulable facts linking this person to specific crimes for which they match the general description. It has to be more than a hunch and I think it goes beyond hunch to RS in this scenario.

 

[dclaarjr]

Thanks Carmel. I'm just trying to add some info to see if I can understand where the line of a legal stop compared to illegal lies.

Episcopus, Let me try to clarify what I was asking. The break ins in this situation have been occurring over the past few days.

 

[DRob]

Different twist

For the sake of discussion, let's pretend we live in an area where there have been a number of thefts from automobiles, yard barns, porches, etc. Based on reports made by victims and discussion among the neighbors you know they have all happened between 10PM and 6AM. Most of the residents in the area are aware of the crimes. Now......... you happen to come home around 3AM (of course you'll be sober ) and you see a guy in dark clothes, carrying a backpack, walking down the street. You've lived there for several years but you don't recognize the guy. Being the good citizen that you are, you call the police, give them the above information, and they tell you:

A. Walking down the street in dark clothing wearing a backpack at 3AM isn't a crime and they aren't sending anybody because there's nothing the police can do!

or

B. They'll dispatch officers right away and then ask if you have more information such as direction of travel, his height, his build, would you be able to ID him if you saw him again, stuff like that.

Pick one then answer that question about "serve and protect" again.

Not trying to start an argument but I think we tend to approach these things as if we were the guy the police are detaining. We know we aren't criminals so the police have no right to stop us, right? I wonder if our point of view might be different if we heard glass break at 3AM and, upon checking, found our car window busted and that new GPS unit gone. I don't know about you, but I want every SOB on the street stopped, then. And, if I happen to be out walking my dog or just taking a walk after dark and the police stop me and want to know what I'm doing and who I am, I guarantee my part of the conversation will end with "thanks for checking"!

 

[CarmelHP]

There's a difference between what we would like and what's Constitutionally permissible.

 

[DRob]

Yes, that's so but............

There's a difference between what we would like and what's Constitutionally permissible.

Just in case you're referring to my example, it's not a violation of anybody's rights for an officer, under the above circumstances, to check people out. That's what we pay them to do and what we expect them to do.