Terry Stop | quimbee.com

[mr.chipwhitley]

EXTREMELY helpful video!! Thank you once again, Quimbee!! If you only knew how many law students lives you've helped through the stressful experience of cold-calling, final exams, and Bar prep.. we are forever indebted to you creators out there. Thank you!

[LiterallyGod]

Sounds like they can just use this to say you were acting suspicious.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Police cannot demand ID during a Terry stop in most states. In most cases you must be legally arrested to require ID.

[DaveCharbonneau]

1:30 There was still no suspected crime in this example. Suspicious behavior without articulable suspicion of a crime is still just a hunch.

[Graymanone]

I was required to attend use of force training for my security job and a instructor who was in law enforcement stated that a Terry stop extends to private security.I didn't agree and I stated that our "Powers of arrest" manual specifically states that we private security can search for weapons incidental to an arrest. Again I don't agree unless things have changed?

[efjefe]

Everyone is a criminal when a cop pulls you over.

[bitpothead]

"Someone appearing casual in a bad neighborhood" is reasonable cause???? So being poor is enough of a reason to get stopped?

[MagnumOpusSRT]

Why would someone have a Suzuki in the back seat? 4:20

[phdtobe]

The legality of a Terry stop merely for seeing someone running in “high crime” neighborhoods has turned those neighborhoods into domestic occupied zones by careerist-focused police officers and police hierachy.

[cwronny]

Your second part of the video I believe Is inaccurate. You only have to identify yourself if the first part of the Terry stop Is met.
He has to articulate a reasonable belief that you are committing a crime about to commit a crime or have committed a crime simply because your quote suspicious does not meet the legal requirements it has to be suspicious of a specific crime.This is where the problem begins you say the officer can demand identification is the first part has not been as not been met you can refuse. Even if the first part is met there is a problem for instance in California I do not have to identify myself until I'm actually being booked In Texas I do not have to identify self until I'm actually Lawfully arrested. You use the phrase .An officer can demand ID the officer cannot demand ID is the first part of the terrorist that has not been met or if state law says you do not have to identify yourself until you are being legally arrested lots of states are not stopping ID states there is also the Fifth Amendment when you have the right to remain silentThere's also the problem is that a legal order are not and what justifies a legal order Sibley Causey also think you're suspicious does not get his give him the right to demand ID

[zacaelius]

This guy sounds like the voice from fnaf sister location and help wanted

[jazwaz]

this video gets wrong that the 4th amendment allows for a Terry stop on someone just by the cop having an opinion that the person looks strange & possibly up to no good. to perform a Terry stop there has to be suspicion of a particular & articulable offense, not just a vague hunch of general criminality. "stop & frisk" was ruled unconstitutional for both the "stop" and the "frisk" parts, not just for searching people. being a pedestrian in a high crime area is not a basis for reasonable suspicion, & avoiding cops does not automatically indicate any specific potential reason. without reasonable suspicion of any particular offense an investigatory stop is an unlawful seizure, bc the Terry case ruled that with any type of detainment people themselves are being seized.

[swagman]

But as Americans we’re allowed to bear weapons. Why does reasonable suspicion strip you of that right?

[ericray]

They can say it smells like drugs and that's enough. Smell is classified as "qualia" and is subjective. Nevertheless, it is probable cause.

[uknowmeazdaddy]

That sounds like a lot of articulable B.S.!!

[hilohaianmolinere]

This was very eye opening as to what the law means and what and Officer can and can not do. I am little shocked by the drawing used. All of the drawings of Whites seem to imply guilt or just law breakers in general. The Black female Officer implied a stereotype to the Asian father by asking is that a katana in the back seat. The 2 children look angry. I even notice the angry look on the officers face as if being Asian with a katana in the back seat with Children is some how illegal. The drawings really come across as being bigoted to me.