Terry v. Ohio | Case Law for Cops

Police officers are expected to know the law like a lawyer. It starts with a firm grasp of the basics. In this episode, I break down the landmark decision Terry v. Ohio.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
See also - Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) - supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
Train like a lawyer. Find out more about my law enforcement courses - tacticalattorney.com
Listen to the Podcast:
www.spreaker.com/episode/4844...
SIGN UP FOR MY NEWSLETTER TO STAY UP ON CHANGES IN THE LAW: www.subscribepage.com/tactica...
Erik Scramlin is a former Chief Deputy District Attorney and owner of Tactical Legal Solutions, LLC. Courses and contact information available at tacticalattorney.com
DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice. This content and all of Tactical Attorney's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship of any kind.

[@Austin-gb1cq]

Thanks for this video. I've seen hundreds of auditing videos of unlawful detainment where the Sergeant had to show up and correct the officer. Training like this is needed so we stop losing our tax dollars in court.

[@tacticalattorney]

Thank you. Couldn't agree more.

[@kamilegier4730]

It’s very curious that the average citizen knows Terry V Ohio better than the average cop.

[@pdcamsnews]

That is a very good thing, if they know it more, they will know how to use it more against you.

[@aaronbrown8405]

Great point

[@miketyson1717]

​@@pdcamsnewsexcept they think they can sieze whoever whenever they want and think a hunch justifies detention. They also think detention is consensual contact until you leave then think you were detained. If you stay it's consensual if you leave its a lawful detention and you're fleeing or obstructing

[@flipadoo]

Having watched countless 1A audits, I've formed the opinion that most LEOs don't know what the word articulate means and don't seem to understand there are SIX words in RAS. I can't tell you how many times I've see a cop go from a consensual encounter to a Terry frisk for no more than "I have reasonable suspicion", "of what crime", "I didn't say you were committing a crime, it's just suspicious". Six words and they drop four. Now what you're saying is that when those same LEOs go from RS (Reasonable unarticulated Suspicion of no crime) to a pat down, they are defacto violating a citizen's rights. Good to know. Of course, I'm not naïve enough to believe someone holding a ABA membership card will actually hold them accountable for their ignorance, but that's a whole other conversation.

[@i-primeproductions1517]

Great Explanation. Terry has become perhaps the most ABUSED ruling in law enforcement history. “You look suspicious. Give me your ID and I’m going to search you as part of my investigation” not reasonable suspicion of a specific crime being committed just “suspicious.” It seems like the courts definitely need to address this issue in greater detail. Perhaps there needs to be another high-level case that makes more of a differentiation

[@Jdalio5]

My response: is looking suspicious a felony or a misdemeanor?

[@ToeCutter0]

Police need to decide whether they wish to continue detaining folks for not presenting ID on demand, or losing the qualified immunity protection they enjoy altogether. Even folks like me who were pro-police their entire lives have come to recognize how poorly trained LEOs behave today. I suggest they behave untrained because much of the public has no idea how or what police academies train police cadets, but there’s clearly growing public interest in that too as LEOs seemingly attempt to resist the changes the public is demanding from all law enforcement organizations. In videos posted as recently as Dec ‘22 we can see LEOs losing their patience and detaining folks who simply refuse to present ID, without even a _suspicion_ of a crime among multiple LEOs, the LEOs were interested only in winning an argument that don’t seem to fully understand. It’s unclear who’s pushing LEOs to dispense with any degree of courtesy and public service to outright resist reasonable common sense simply to dominate citizens. It’s not ended well for the vast majority of these LEOs, especially when video evidence of the incidents are available. I served and did so with honor and discipline as being perceived as professional was extremely important to me and the values that I hold dear. I learned a lot about authority and respect, and how neither can be obtained with a baton or sidearm.

[@jackevans5611]

Florida v. J.L. 266 U.S. 2000

[@kaithurm6746]

This type of policing is the precursor to The Minority Report.

[@RicardoRoams]

This is one of the many problems with cops today. They treat every weapons pat down as automatic.

[@jimbriola6264]

Years later Terry killed a drug store owner in Columbus Ohio and was killed himself when the owner shot back. This could have happened on Halloween 1963 if Detective Martin McFadden had not acted. Uncle Marty!

[@kaynesovereign9372]

So because someone COULD HAVE violated the law that gives cops the right to not violate millions of Americans fourth amendment rights. More innocent people have been violated by Terry v Ohio than criminals have been arrested.

[@HappyCaffeine]

Great videos. Thank you so much.

[@tacticalattorney]

Thank you, I appreciate the comment and I'm glad you are taking some value from the content.

[@gilbertgarcia2418]

Great presentation! I follow several channels to learn about our "rights" and have learned quite a bit. Too bad it appears cops don't appear to adhere to the law in many cases. After all "officer safety" seems to trump case law especially at traffic stops according to what is recorded on KZbin via Lackluster, the civil rights attorney, etc.

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks! Yes, there are too many examples of officers going beyond the scope of what the Court laid out. In my experience it's a result of lack of legal education. I encourage officers and agencies to invest more in legal education.

[@Bob9961]

Microphone class is in session. You don't have to speak directly into the mic's pickup element, but the mic should be pointed directly at your mouth. The sideways mic technique isn't nearly as cool as people think it is, and it's not good technique because it's 90 degrees off axis (pointed 90 degrees away from the source). You have the mic pointed at the wall, where "room bounce" lives, instead of the source. You want the mic to primarily capture the sound coming out of your mouth, right? Well, the same as you would turn your head to best hear a sound source, point the mic at the source; your mouth. To avoid popping Ps and plosives (and blocking the camera's view of your mouth or face), slide the mic slightly off to the side, but keep it pointing at your mouth without talking directly into it. Also, remember that the lower you place the mic, the more throat and chest resonance will be heard. The higher its placed, the more nasally you sound. Use headphones to find the best placement. The presence of your voice will improve, the room noise will decrease, and audio engineers won't get a chuckle out of your clever technique. Oh, and this technique works for non-attorneys as well. Now go forth, internet people, and sound your best!

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks for the tips. I'm always trying to get the best audio I can.

[@tipptipprose5223]

Great explanation. Thank you

[@GlendaSassy]

My daughter was pulled over because the officer said in his report that the listed vehicle committed a traffic violation by not using their turn signal within turning of 100 feet. There was no listed vehicle on the report. He did not give her a ticket. However, he searched her, the ppl in the vehicle, and the vehicle. He said he used a K9 in his report and found drugs. My daughter and ppl in the vehicle said no K9 was used. Also, we just found out he was not scheduled on duty as an officer or a assigned K9 Officer on that day. This is clearly against the laws and constitution amendments, and rights of a citizen.

[@pdcamsnews]

Get in contact with a Lawyer that specializes in police misconduct. Also make a public records request for the dash cam footage of that officer's car it may well show here was no turn signal violation and he fabricated that fact to make the stop.

[@GlendaSassy]

@pdcamsnews they have no dash cam video, and they said they lost a lot of records due to malware attac k and they requested ransom. I filed a public records request and complaint. How can a prosecutor even file charges if it says the listed vehicle committed a traffic violation and no vehicle listed anywhere in the report to show any vehicle. I have contacted lawyers and I can't get no lawyer to take the case. Isn't that prosecutorial misconduct on prosecutor's part for allowing charges of a traffic violation with no vehicle listed on any report? Also the prosecutor requested a audio copy of the grand jury report and the court reporter provided it. By law under grand jury secrecy laws the prosecutor was not allowed to have a copy of it. Also, the police are providing a K9 report. Supposedly, the officer found it in his own files , but I was told there was no K9 report on file for that officer that night.

[@Armed-Forever]

also, cops ignore the armed and dangerous requirement all the time, just look up traffic stop vids, always patting down ppl illegally

[@dakotasteele8546]

Weird. All the ones I watch they ask for consent

[@paulmanning4627]

@@dakotasteele8546 really I’ll upload my stop lmk when u hear them ask for consent to rip me out the car search me.

[@shark2u6]

My problem is when a cop pulls you over for a headlight or a license plate light or a made up reason. They start with the prodding questions like your a criminal knowing they ran your plate and you identified yourself and they know you are a law abiding citizen and they try to run you through like a criminal. This has happened to me several times in my life. I'm always courteous but when a cop starts lying that's where I end the being nice about their BS. Once I had to go to court 3 times to get a case thrown out without an attorney because I was in the right. The cop lied and said I ran a red light to pull me over to see if I was drinking. 6 cruisers and my girlfriend in the car for a Cops lie, and they even admitted they had nothing better to do! the prosecutor approached me on the 3rd court appearance. He asked me how far I was willing to take this. I was shocked! I said all the way because your deputy has no proof of me committing a violation. He asked if I had an attorney I advised I don't need one to beat this case. There should have never been one. All said and done I walked out of the court room that day with no ticket or violations on my record. This cost me three days of work due to the cop not showing up for the first 2 trial dates. Once I had him in the courtroom I questioned his actions and proof of my wrong doing. He had no proof except for I saw you! I said oh now we can just say someone did something and it costs them money and time. He burst out with I'm an officer of the law. I said well even officers of the law need proof of wrongdoing not here say! Then I asked didn't you state you had nothing better to do that night to your coworkers while you had me pulled over, and be truthful you are under oath! He stated Yes and the judge threw it out. So sad this ever happened!

[@albertkeenan1449]

Eric is one of the good guys. Appreciate your time and energy.

[@tacticalattorney]

Thank you sir!

[@zoomwithsmokeybear2597]

I did know that we lived in a time of precog, meaning that of defendant has not committed a crime, that we can now lock them up before they do so.

[@walkingdeadman4208]

It happens a lot

[@slaptainshwirv]

Excellent video and explanation. A follow up question: in a state that is NOT stop and ID, can an officer lawfully order the detainee to identify?

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Excellent question, Terry is the 4th Amendment standard. States have their own constitution and they are free to interpret their constitution as giving more rights than it's federal counterpart. This means a state may give more rights to citizens. You would have to look to your particular state's constitutional interpretation and laws to figure out if an officer may lawfully order a person to identify. The 4th amendment standard requires a minimum of reasonable suspicion before an officer can require a person to ID.

[@slaptainshwirv]

@@tacticalattorney thank you for prompt response.

[@hafsalinda]

See texas penal code 38.02 for thos extra rights he spoke of. Must id after being lawfully arrested10 years ago tx leo's didnt even know the code that applied to them. First ammendment audits brought a massive education to those illeterate leo's.

[@mrsoul680]

Officers cannot stop someone randomly and force them to identify in ANY state because that violates the Fourth Amendment.

[@Cg.Training_Addicts]

Great breakdown

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks I appreciate it!

[@marsman01]

These videos are great. Very well thought out and explained. I wish there was a channel like this for MT

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks for the kind words. If you have any topics you would like to see me discuss, let me know. I'll do my best.

[@jasonmohn1472]

I just love how people watch a 16 minute video about how the details in case can make a stop and frisk legal, but then go on to claim cops never ever are allowed to do what Terry V Ohio says they can. It's almost like they have no idea what they are talking about. Someone being belligerent to a lawful order is a danger. Cause if they aren't going to listen to, "give me your ID so I can write a ticket," then why would it be reasonable to think that person will comply with orders like, "step back," or "don't reach for that gun." I also find it hilarious that everyone that claims "reasonable articulate suspicion" has no idea what that means. You were speeding, RAS to pull you over and detain you, you cause a violation. If you refuse to comply with lawful orders such as "get out of the car" or "show me your ID," then you are obstructing and breaking another law, RAS.

[@jimbriola6264]

Halloween day is coming soon On Haloween 1963 my Uncle, Detective McFadden stopped Terry, Chilton and Cats on Playhouse Square in Cleveland, Ohio.

[@michaelresanovic4091]

*unlawfully

[@darylhoyt5012]

Thorough…thank you.

[@tacticalattorney]

Thank you glad you enjoyed it

[@NextScamdemic]

True story: I was randomly walking down the street one evening, and a police cruiser pulled beside me, the blue lights came on, the officer came out of the vehicle and approached me. I said, "can I help you officer?" He replied, "I'm not sure" as he grabbed both my hands, put them behind my back in an arm-lock position and pulled me over to his cruiser. I was terrified and had no idea what was going on. He said, "we're investigating a crime and you match the description of the suspect". (I had nothing to do with it). He demanded ID. I gave it because I thought I was legally required to. After 10 minutes or so another cruiser rolled up and I heard the officer in that vehicle say "that's not him". The 1st cop let me go, but he was a total prick, clearly didn't give a shit about violating a totally innocent citizen's rights. A) was that a legal detainment? B) was I legally required to identify myself? (I'm NOT in a "stop and identify" state C) was the officer legally allowed to place his hands on me? It felt like assault and I gave no indication I wasn't cooperative or not going to follow his verbal instructions.

[@septegram]

IANAL, but it was probably legal if the crime they were investigating involved violence; he wanted to be sure you didnt use violenceon _him._ If he had RAS that you were involved (ie matched the description) he could legally detain you for investigation. Whether he could demand ID at that point depends on your state.

[@brian7451]

Pat down on the outside of clothing. No rummaging through pockets

[@tacticalattorney]

You got it.

[@brian7451]

@@tacticalattorney I know I got it. I posted that comment because police don't get it. For the record I'm not a you tube lawyer. I appreciate your replying. With qualified immunity most law enforcement will ignore people that don't agree with the wrong way they were taught law. It's in thier best interest to not know law. That way they won't be held personally responsible for thier ignorance

[@Armed-Forever]

@@brian7451 cops love to ignore the 2nd part too about being armed and dangerous, to them a pat down is always valid during a detainment of any crime, even if you went 10 over

[@daniam4418]

I appreciate this explanation. I recently discovered Chille and his delete lawz channel and heard his explanation of why terry v Ohio should be overturned. Not every officer has 30 years patrol experience to rely on when deeming someone suspicious however when you explained it as detailing and stating the facts not jumping to a conclusion of one “being suspicious” makes more sense and in my opinion the jump is being made more than the former nowadays. My question with all due respect is the thin blue line flag. Can you please articulate what it means to you and why? I saw it as supporting your police force but as I watch more and more police operate I feel like it’s an us(police) vs them(the people) mentality. I support good officers honoring the oath they choose to make the the constitution. It deserves some of the highest of societies praises. However I do not see the oath honored. I probably am watching to many outlier videos. All I know is we need Good officers and I am afraid all we have are order takers just “doing their job” and that doesn’t end well

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks for the comment, I'm glad that the video provided some value to you. As a former prosecutor, I have handled hundreds of suppression motions alleging a lack of reasonable suspicion and I can tell you from experience that judges will apply the law. I have had countless cases lead to suppression of evidence due to a lack of reasonable suspicion or officers acting on hunches. Also, as a former civil rights defense attorney, representing officers and municipalities being sued under section 1983 I observed that the vast majority of law enforcement officers strive to uphold the law while maintaining civil rights. I came to a realization that lack of legal education with officers was the cause of almost every single case I was involved in. Police academies and Police agencies simply do not prioritize legal education. I started my company to provide high quality legal education to officers because a well trained officer is competent, effective and an asset to their community.

[@edf3725]

@daniam4418 Chile of DeleteLawz is just slightly elevated from being a Diagnostically Certified Narcissist by the DSM IV and his caustic personality does more harm to Civil Rights than what he pretends to be accomplishing. @tacticalattorney I commend you for bifurcating the differences between a Terry Stop and a Terry Frisk in such simple layman's understandable language. It seems from all of the 1st Amendment and Cop Watcher Videos out there, that the misunderstanding of the parameters necessary for a Terry Frisk near the 99% mark on Field Officers and just under 50% for the Sergeant or Shift Commander called onsite to diffuse the situation. It had been my interpretation previously that the Officers needed A Reasonable Articulable Suspicion that the suspect was Both Armed And Dangerous, just as your video portrayed, yet I would be willing to bet that practically all of the Officers who abuse that Court Rulings still would not change their minds, even if they were presented a copy of the Written Case Law Ruling placed right in their hands. It seems that Ego Overrules Rationality on a perpetually continuous basis.

[@kamaeq]

Modern US "militarized" policing make cops humorless scum at about the level of terrorists with respects to rights. The USSC has ruled police have no obligation to serve or protect nor any reason to be truthful. The current paradigm is police as occupying enemy combatants and citizens as POWs to be abused.

[@408lurks]

You need to stop consuming tremendous amounts of bias confirming propaganda. You need to accept reality and accountability in understanding that policing is intrinsically extremely difficult, necessary to a civil society, and dangerous. I'd posit to assume that you, or at least the average person, has never had to experience abject violence. Murderous evil. The average American is extremely entitled by our rights and like an obese, worthless cat, begs for more chow. Go experience real police tyranny. Listen to what people who live in Australia have to say about what it's like to get pulled over while driving there. Do yourself a favor and listen to hours upon hours of Police dispatch and you'll understand the reality of the subject you have such contrived, vitriolic, biased and ignorant opinions about.

[@aperequest]

There are giant problems with the way these investigations are used today. To most officers that I’ve encountered, reasonable suspicion can mean: that “I don’t know if you’re not doing anything wrong, I’m detaining you until you prove to me that you aren’t doing something wrong.” You can’t detain someone based off of not knowing what they’re up to. A detention must be based off of evidence that they are up to something. Then you can’t arrest unless you develop probable cause. Probable cause doesn’t mean that your unsubstantiated claims weren’t proven wrong. The other huge issue is: There is an extreme emphasis put on IDENTIFYING anyone that interacts with police. The vast majority of “investigations,” begin and end with obtaining ID. Even when more efficient and obvious ways of dispelling any suspicion are immediately available to the officer, they will stay on the ID. I’ve had an officer tell me personally that anyone who doesn’t want to provide an ID most likely has warrants. They will continue detentions well past the point where any suspicion has been dispelled solely for the purpose of identifying and checking for warrants. It’s blatantly obvious that the United States is tracking its citizens interactions with police and police contact is clearly a priority for them. Entire arrests for not identifying weren’t normal.

[@timrollins1015]

sounds very subjective in favor of the officer to search people. I saw a "bulge" so they are suspicious of being armed and dangerous.

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks for the comment Tim. The Supreme Court has made it clear that this is an "objective" standard. An officer must articulate specific facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe the person is armed and dangerous. A bulge in the clothing, criminal history, nature of the offense are just factors in the analysis.

[@brian7451]

In the 1980's they would say I knew he had contraband because I found contraband.

[@Armed-Forever]

seeing a bulge would not be reasonable grounds of being armed and dangerous, the types offense in question would be, cops abuse it tho, they’ll pat u down for speeding

[@sirtiksalot9511]

I’d like you opinion on a scenario. If witnesses say that a person answered their door naked, can an officer step inside a residence and handcuff the alleged suspect without a search warrant under Terry v Ohio?

[@GoToPhx]

Regardless of one's opinion about the Terry v Ohio decision, the problem I see in many videos is that what you are explaining here is NOT being done. Video after video shows officers, as a matter of ROUTINE frisking individuals they clearly (by their stance, their words, where they stand in relation to the subject, turning their back on the subject, etc.) do NOT think are 'presently armed and dangerous'. They have made frisking/ patting down merely another step in the process of a 'routine' traffic stop, and that is WRONG. This adds to public distrust of police, but if one comes upon an educated person, it opens up the department and city/county to plaintiff-win-able lawsuits.

[@tacticalattorney]

Well said. Couldn't agree more. It's encumbant upon LEOs to make sure they are well educated and always follow the law. Doing so allows them to effectively police, arrest the bad guys and maintain citizens' rights.

[@timrollins1015]

ok, please help us understand how the suspicion of a person maybe going to commit a crime is the justification for reasonable suspicion that a person is armed? if so how far can that go? if they are suspicious they are going to commit a crime, then you are suspicious they have weapons, then if the suspicious of crime you are suspicious that don't pay propper taxes, the suspicious they are a member of organized crime....where does it stop. Are we talking statically probability? thanks

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks for the comment Tim, I apologize for the late reply, I will do my best to answer your questions. As to the first question, which I understand to mean how does reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot justify a terry frisk? The simple answer is that it does not. In Terry, the Court made clear that a Terry frisk requires reasonable suspicion to seize the person first, and in addition to that, the officer must articulate additional reasonable suspicion that the person is presently armed and dangerous. The Court listed some factors that would suffice such as, the type of crime i.e. armed robbery, bulges in clothing, prior criminal history, furtive movements and so on. Question two requires us to look to how the Court's define reasonable suspicion, the Court has told us they can't give an exact definition they can only tell us that it is a big picture analysis based on articulable facts that an officer can make reasonable inferences from. Some of the things you listed in your question would be considered "mere hunches" without specific articulable facts and would not constitute reasonable suspicion. Static probability is not required, an officer only has to articulate facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe criminal activity is a foot but it must be more than a mere hunch. I hope that helps. Thanks again.

[@forall1791]

This suspicion was specific to Terry v Ohio because Officer McFadden had the local statistics of how many robberies were committed using guns. He did not just assume they might be armed. This is the mistake many officers make today. They have no facts or experience to back up their suspicions.

[@adityatyagi4009]

The Terry stop involves two components: 1) stop; and 2) frisk. Both require a "reasonable articulable suspicion" for a police officer to conduct a brief investigation that a crime has been committed. Let's take these one at a time. First, the stop. If the PO can articulate that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime, then the PO can ask for an ID. So, if a PO observes a person matching the description of someone who has committed a crime, the PO can ask stop this person and ask for ID. Or if the person notices this person is carrying tools which are often used in a burglary, the PO can stop and ask for an ID. If the person is seen coming/going into a dwelling which is known for drug acivity, the PO can stop and ask for ID. As long as it can be reasonably articulated beyond mere a hunch of looking "suspicious," then a stop and request for ID is constitutional. Now, the second part: the frisk. This also requres a RAS in order for it to be constitutional. So if the person matches the description of a suspect for an armed robbery, the "armed" nature of the crime is enough for a PO to stop and frisk this person for weapons. However, if the person is suspected of a crime which did not involved a weapon, the PO can stop but not necessarily frisk the person. Now, hypotheticlaly during the "stop," a gun falls out of the pocket of the suspect, the PO now can constitutionally frisk the person for further weapons.

[@Constitutionallycorrect]

You need to explain to your audience that articulate doesn't mean to fabricate.

[@mrmoore9815]

1963, this sounds like 3 men with no color TV at home taking turns watching a show of some sort and wanted the officer to leave them alone. Sincerely, Retired MP.

[@RandomRads]

Citizens: Why you want my I.D? What crime I have committed? Cops: by not giving your I.D, you are obstruction of my investigation. And that’s a crime. Citizens: WTF?!

[@TheMNBlackBear]

We're gonna overturn a Terry Vs. OHIO! TOO BAD, SO SAD, COPPERS!

[@SalApYaInDaFace]

and what if they (the civilian) do not consent to contact and walk away?

[@tacticalattorney]

During a lawful Terry stop, where the seizure is supported by reasonable suspicion, the subject is not free to leave.

[@michaelresanovic4091]

@@tacticalattorney Well it's state law that actually gives any and all authority that police officers have. I wish people would be less careless in treating the terms "lawful" and "constitutional" as if they were the same thing.

[@barbaramatthews4735]

​@@michaelresanovic4091Yes, lawful and constitutional are different. Still, laws must be constitutional.

[@zoomwithsmokeybear2597]

The Supreme Court said officers are not supposed to be like a lawyers

[@walkingdeadman4208]

They should at least know the constitution , and laws they are enforcing. This is why there are so many innocent people sitting in jail

[@ericshun7742]

@@walkingdeadman4208 Lawyer’s are provided time to build their case. Unlike officers.

[@kd8825]

Don't forget - McFadden also spent 28 years of his 30 under Jim Crow

[@hafsalinda]

27 legislatures have given their citizens the absolute right to go about armed, either concealed or open. Therefore the armed fork of armed and dangerous doesnt apply in those 27 states. The only other option is dangerous. Leo's can pat down a citizen if he is acting dangerous. If you have no crime, dont interact Or arrest with intent to create a crime to justify the arrest / patdown with being armed as a component of the arrest ( catfishing by masterbaiters )

[@drodriguez394]

Let me get this straight, you make mention it’s possible to be armed and NOT dangerous but make mention to look for a firearm bulge and that would be reasonable suspension for being armed and dangerous

[@tacticalattorney]

That would be a factor to consider, yes. Reasonable suspicion is a totality of circumstances analysis.

[@user-qp8cu8jd3z]

Why is it that under nm law a search warrant must be granted bya neutral and detached judge (magistrate) yet the same magistrate holds a probable cause hearing and preliminary hearing which he would have to rule against himself

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks for the question. Your question requires a bit of a deeper dive into the rules of criminal procedure. The simplest answer would be that a magistrate judge's job at a preliminary hearing is STRICTLY limited to finding whether or not probable cause exists to support a felony charge. This means that a magistrate cannot consider any challenges to a search warrant or any other legal challenges for that matter.

[@brlyjo]

You said, "Police need evidence that the person is both arned AND dangerous to do a pat down, just being armed doesn't make you dangerous." But then you said, "If you see a bulge that could be a gun, then that's enough to suspect that they could be armed and dangerous."

[@tacticalattorney]

It is a factor to consider. Reasonable suspicion is a totality of circumstances analysis so all factors are considered in the big picture.

[@brlyjo]

@tacticalattorney then is seeing a bulge is not enough to indicate they are dangerous?

[@408lurks]

​​@@brlyjoit's a extremely nuanced and relative to the overall totality of circumstances. Is everybody autistic?

[@NextScamdemic]

Does Terry v Ohio have anything to say about officers demanding ID from a citizen during a Terry stop? Are you legally required to identify yourself if an officer detains you with RAS?

[@tacticalattorney]

Great question. While Terry does not address this directly, subsequent case law has. It is going to be specific to each State's law requiring a citizen to produce ID upon a lawful order from a police officer. The key is it must be a "lawful" order. Here in New Mexico, our courts have determined that under our concealing ID or resisting, evading a police officer statute, if an officer has reasonable suspicion to detain a citizen, the officer's order to produce ID is lawful and failure to submit to that order may result in a lawful arrest. I harp on the lawfulness aspect in my trainings. I stress to officers that they may only demand an ID if they have articulable reasonable suspicion, if not they must not demand ID and must not arrest. Thanks for the great question! I hope this answers it.

[@NextScamdemic]

@@tacticalattorneywow, much appreciate the thorough reply. I'll look into my state's laws concerning this

[@jensgropp]

Sue the cops. Every chance you get they are not your friend. They are not there to help you.

[@RandomRads]

Cops: Hey! Where are you going? Citizens: I plead 5th Cops: that’s suspicious. Hence, you are under arrest. Citizens: okay! I’m going home. Jeez! Cops: what’s your address? Citizens: WTF?!

[@michaelresanovic4091]

Not all states have authorized Terry Stops.

[@larryadams3839]

Break down probable cause

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks for the comment. PC, like RS is often times misunderstood. I will definitely consider breaking down PC in a future episode. Thanks!

[@mike025jurado]

First and foremost thank you for providing us NM cops with your videos! Speaking to my crew we had a question about having Investigative Detention duration. We’ve come across with people who have out of state extraditable warrants so we handcuff them and wait for the warrant confirmation. Usually it only takes between 5 to 20 minutes and once confirmed we effect the arrest. There has been a few instances when the confirmation takes much longer than that and we wanted to know the length and duration an Investigative Detention was allowed. Thank you!

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks! I'm glad the content is helping. Excellent questions, unfortunately there is no magic number here. The touchtone of the 4th Amendment is "reasonableness", therefore the length of time you detain to confirm the warrant needs to be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of each particular stop. Generally the courts look to how long it typically takes to confirm a warrant, if its 10-20 minutes, then once you get past 20 minutes the Courts will really begin to scrutinize weather or not the detention is reasonable. The severity of the crime, the type of warrant, danger of escape of the subject should all play a factor. Be sure to clearly articulate the relevant facts and circumstances if you decide to detain longer than it typically takes.

[@mike025jurado]

@@tacticalattorney Thank You so much for the quick answer!

[@cherokeerir]

You say that you "see cops mess up all the time." How many cops have you prosecuted for messing up?

[@tacticalattorney]

I see common mistakes like poor writing or misunderstanding the law such as I point out in the videos. Rarely does this rise to the level of criminal culpability. When it does, officers are subject to prosecution under state law or sections 241 and 242 federally. I have prosecuted police officers for criminal violations in my career.

[@philipstanco6011]

Stumbled upon your channel. I will watch more.

[@tacticalattorney]

Much appreciated.

[@timrollins1015]

A more accurate description be an alleged potential crime may possibly be being planed?

[@forall1791]

My question has always been, "Why did Officer McFadden not call his precinct for backup when he became suspecious? His actions in confronting three potentially armed and dangerous suspects all by himself gives rise to the lie he frisked them for his safety. The time spent observing the suspects could have been used to set up a sting to catch the suspects in the act and send them to prison for a lot longer than three years. Like so many cops today ego seems to have played a part in McFadden's decissions that day.

[@whytheybeefing]

the frisking for safety was inserted by the supreme court

[@septegram]

In that day and age, he may not have had a personal radio, especially in plain clothes. Going to a police call box would likely have taken him out of sight of the suspects, and he probably feared they would act before he or backup got back.

[@Fromabove534]

Good video! I've been looking for stuff to listen to while I do cardio. Keep up the good work

[@tacticalattorney]

Thanks. I'm glad you like it.

[@colinforsecs3393]

It needs to be overturned...We don't want Terry stops anymore. Police solve like 4% of crimes and most of the 4% they're probably instigating it through a Terry Stop

[@jakedode]

This channel has helped me more on my lawsuit against a false arrest than any other. (Charges dropped)Still a thumbs down for the terrorist desecrated American flag in the background.

[@holdingcopsaccountable6554]

Reverse Terry vs Ohio.

[@michaelresanovic4091]

Jurisdictions should simply not pass laws authorizing it. The question in any exclusionary case is "Has the officer done something no law could authorize?" not "Is is authorized?" nor even "Is is good policy?"

[@peccatumDei]

Lately, I've been watching videos of "Sovereign Citizens" being stopped, and they quite often demand to know if "this is a Terry stop." Some officers say yes, but I've seen a few that very quickly state no, that it's a traffic stop. To me this sounds like a response they've been trained to give, and it just makes me wonder if traffic stops should be considered a fourth kind of interaction.

[@mrsoul680]

traffic stops are a kind of Terry stop.

[@RandomRads]

Citizens: Are you detaining me? Cops: No. I just want to t… hey! Stop. Stop. You can’t leave while I’m talking. Citizens: WTF

[@mikethemechanic2773]

Over turn terry V Ohio.

[@SeanSchwifty]

It’s sad how we now live in, what can only be described as, a police state 😢 Personal freedom is a thing of the past, when a cop decides to involve themselves in your life. And with the way qualified immunity is set up, they act without fear of consequences. 🙃

[@408lurks]

You need to stop consuming tremendous amounts of bias confirming propaganda. You need to accept reality and accountability in understanding that policing is intrinsically extremely difficult, necessary to a civil society, and dangerous. I'd posit to assume that you, or at least the average person, has never had to experience abject violence. Murderous evil. The average American is extremely entitled by our rights and like an obese, worthless cat, begs for more chow. Go experience real police tyranny. Listen to what people who live in Australia have to say about what it's like to get pulled over while driving there. Do yourself a favor and listen to hours upon hours of Police dispatch and you'll understand the reality of the subject you have such contrived, vitriolic, biased and ignorant opinions about

[@iceman1829]

One accept that you may need to cover is that the officer is under color of law and must establish rule of law. Too extent a terry stop or require suspect to surrender there four amendment for id or for the officer to be able to give a valid command or legally arrest a suspect. and that's its illegal to lie coerce threaten with jail there four amendment rights! I know that officers can and are allowed to lie to the suspect about almost anything evidence and witnesses and so forth. If I am wrong please can you state the case law to me!!! what is the indelible right of the fourth amendment case and point 18 U.S.C. § 242 This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Much respect to your video to teach are law enforcement how to protect them and the citizens they are suppose to protect .

[@paulmanning4627]

But you being a prosecutor would know that federal laws and federal right superseded any state law or state constitution.

[@tacticalattorney]

You are correct. However, states are free to implement laws providing greater protections under its own state constitution. New Mexico, for example, has adopted such an approach so it is important to be aware of both state and federal law.

[@paulmanning4627]

@@tacticalattorney well I am a American not a Ohioan. I am a national not a citizen. There for supremacy clause is in effect

[@kd8825]

#OTVO

[@AlwaysOnP0int]

One of the most egregious mistakes fumbled by the supreme court of all time.

[@Sprot66]

Well, Citizen's United holds that crown, but it's up there.

[@MrGreenotwo]

I mean. Curious about the 'Police officers are expected to know the law like a lawyers' matches with 'Heien v. North Carolina 2014' where it says 'ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop.' Ya DeleteLawz got me interested in your channel. I mean is there a 'clear and present danger of being armed' requirement and reasonable suspicion of a 'crime being commited' which states in it Terry v Ohio. I know these Civil Rights lawyers just get in the way of good policing with these 1983 lawsuits and getting rid of the qualified immunity.

[@sammyarmanii.78]

Off course i ask that u look these messages over n do a reupload addresing these inconsistencies in ur video..will u.?

[@tacticalattorney]

I'm not sure what inconsistencies you are referring to?

[@jairtime]

Terry stops are abused.

[@septegram]

"Armed _and_ presently dangerous" makes it clear that simply printing is _not_ enough to justify a Terry frisk. You keep saying "presently armed and dangerous," but the decision says "armed and presently dangerous." I see so many videos of cops frisking someone (especially 1A auditors) "for officer safety," with no discernible indication that the subject meets _either_ criterion. What recourse do the public have when a cop says "I'm going to pat you down for officer safety?"

[@kd8825]

#overturnterry

[@FIoydFan]

Sitting in a car and ducking when a cop drives should not give cops the right to surround my car with flashing lights at 11 pm. If I knew then what I do now, I wouldn’t have identified or answered any questions. The only offense was trying to create privacy. The real insult was the flashing lights alerting my friends neighbors to the encounter. Pigs route around until they find something. Suspicion is not a crime. Adversarial discourse must be respected. We should not answer questions as anything we say can be construed against us. That’s not to say cops can’t ask questions. We are not all criminals though politifact says 70% of adults have done something they could be incarcerated for. Cops interact with people on their worst days. Why be a dic about it?

[@w1zard0f0h]

You can't possibly be a real attorney. This whole thing is lies. Maybe we should contact the bar association and see what they think about this.

[@nowapobron]

Spq ene ole

[@jimbriola6264]

Detective McFadden was my uncle,

[@tacticalattorney]

Very cool.

[@pdcamsnews]

Terry v Ohio needs overturned. It's a slap in the face to US Citizens and their Constitution.

[@mattsonnek8509]

Overturn Terry vs Ohio. Individual rights supersede officer safety. Dissolve government tyranny with knowledge of Right vs wrong.

[@devonstewart4719]

They have to be able to articulate there actions.

[@Sprot66]

Always, always, always film the police AND keep your mouth shut. The only thing they protect and serve is the coffers of their jurisdiction.

[@chrisgotham4321]

I hope you dropped that trash music intro

[@zoomwithsmokeybear2597]

You understand who the man was in the frame cord that help bring Terry versus Ohio to life, then you would understand why I shouldn't be on the books

[@Patstar777]

End TVO

[@zoomwithsmokeybear2597]

You need to look at it who wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court who that person was, who Terry was in Terry versus Ohio, he was a black man and he wasn't supposed to be in downtown hanging around

[@walkingdeadman4208]

And he was poor, and had a public pretended

[@zoomwithsmokeybear2597]

The problem is your prosecutor not an attorney

[@walkingdeadman4208]

It would be you're, not your

[@zoomwithsmokeybear2597]

@@walkingdeadman4208 Is true

[@cup_cuppy_cuppers5817]

​ @zoomwithsmokeybear2597 - What an idiotic thing to say, "prosecutor not an attorney". Prosecutors are attorneys. I assume you're trying to make a distinction between the experiences, perspectives and roles of Prosecutors and Defense attorneys/Public Defenders. But hey, I could be wrong in my assumption, and you are indeed, an idiot.