The Terry search - Is it legal to search for Citizen If you do not commit obvious crimes?

A citizen of Texas asked a good question from me last night. He mentioned that he and his two friends were stopped and searched as they stood on the corner just talking when he is working in the gym. He stated that he believes the officer had no right, they searched and finally, after some questioning by the officer, they were released. He asked me whether I think they had a good case to the Police Department to sue for a violation of the Fourth AmendmentRights (an illegal search). After I learned how they were searched (the officer, she knocked down), I gave him my answer and thought it good to share with others. My answer ... only if they prove to the officer, but only held them for no reason (believe me, he will say he had a reason, read on).

Now if the officer actually went through their bags searched and their inner clothes, or let them take off their shoes, maybe they have a case. Here's why, and a good teaching isall.

Police officers are allowed or press down frisk when stopped pedestrians. They are just too pat or frisk immediately for a weapon that can harm them. A perfectly legal to say, and I have to maneuver as they (are humans and have) a right to security. You may only search for a weapon though! This maneuver or legal action is a named Terry search, as named after a Supreme Court with John Terry of Ohio in 1968. When can he do that?

Only if a police officer believes you havecommitted a crime, for example, to a crime and actually committing to the process of committing a crime, he can frisk) pat, in fact, a search (downward. The police can not stop and look, but the evidence or simply because he feels like! A search for evidence requires a guarantee signed by a judge. In his search of you in detail so that a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights ... that is an unreasonable search and / or seizing it! In this case conducted an unreasonable search!If you can prove that, or have witnesses, a detailed search, you have a case with a qualifier! The qualifier? When the cop finds a gun at you through the press down or frisk, he has the likely cause for the search further (who knows, maybe you) have a different weapon.

You know the part where I mentioned that he said he had a reason to stop you guys want? Let me tell you what officers know all the streets and play well. All he has to do is say that, having regard to you at the corner,He thought you would consider committing a crime! He has only articulate his suspicion in a reasonable thing, I'm not kidding, that's what the law says properly articulated!

This statement in itself gives him protection and security! Definitely wrong and a violation of your rights, but you can not prove it! Now do you see why all the rogue police must be betrayed? We need to remove them if they infringe the rights of citizens so that others can not stand.

It's just too muchPower in the hands of a man with control over your life! His words received more validation and truth, just because of the uniform! Scary huh? And since we reverse on this issue, I think it should. I believe that we should get the public to the benefit of doubt, the first validation and the presumption of truth!