Pat down request?

[porschesales]

glad i wasnt the only one who read the lousiana law when i applied for my permit python lol

[cdvanns]

If they decide they want to stop you and ask for your ID and search you they won't have a problem finding a reason to do it.

[UtahConcealer]

Originally Posted by HulkXD

A police officer can ask anything he wants. He can ask to frisk you or for your ID, and if you say no, he can only arrest you or force you to if he has reasonable suspicion (as has been stated earlier) or probable cause, depending on the situation.

Bu you asked, "can he ASK for those things" and the answer is, Yes, he can ask.

to clarify, you must have probable cause to arrest...you can't arrest based on RS only...

Originally Posted by Myk9noseknows

Actually the area is grey with K9's. The law dictates that you can hold someone until a K9 unit arrives as long as it's "within a reasonable amount of time". Not within the normal traffic delays.

Ex. If you are in rural Ohio and the closes K9 team is 35-40 minutes away, it is perfectly legal to hold them for that time period. Since the closest one is 40 minutes away, it is considered "reasonable"

However, if you are in a busy city and you call for a K9 and one sherrif team says he is 5 min away, but you know the team to be unreliable officers and you decide to wait for the 2nd K9 unit which is 15 minutes away but works for your department. It is considered unreasonable to detain the suspects for the 15 minutes to wait for the 2nd K9 unit. You have to utilize the Sheriff K9 unit or no unit at all or else it's considered an unreasonable amount of time to detain.

It's all relative to the conditions around the neighboring area.

2nd. You guys are right about reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause. Terry Fleck v. Ohio was an interesting case involving a few "undesirable" characters walking around a bad part of town at 2:00 in the morning.
Officers stated that because it was in the middle of the night, and the area is notorious as being high crime, it was perfectly reasonable to stop these individuals and pat them down / question them. This was done for the safety of the officers and for public safety.
Terry Fleck argued that the cops had no reason to stop and question him as he was not doing anything illegal.
The Court found that there was REASONABLE SUSPICION that Fleck was "doing something illegal" given the high crime area and the time of day.

So as long as an officer can make an argument in court that he had enough reasonable suspicion to stop you, it's perfectly legal for him to do so, question you, and pat you down. So as long as the officer is eloquent enough in his verbage, intelligent enough to find a reason, he can frisk you without even telling you why.

A K9's nose is basically considered to be the same as an officers eyes. The K9 can sniff out the "presence of a narcotic odor", is basically the same as an officer sniffing booze on your breath while he talks to you. Or if the officer can see an open container in your back seat, etc...
The K9's alert is now probable cause to detain you, do a thorough search of his persons and his vehicle without your consent.

If you refuse to provide ID to an officer when he asks you, you could be detained longer or arrested for failure to cooperate with LE / inhibiting a police investigation...i.e. Obstruction

+1 to that

Originally Posted by Myk9noseknows

One more thing to mention.

An officer cannot just detain you to call in K9. He already has some reasonable suspicion that narcotics/paraphrenalia is present, the suspect is just refusing consent.
So something is not adding up to the traffic stop where the officer already has reasonable suspicion to call in K9. Again, he has to have a reason to detain you and make you wait for K9 to arrive.

I was just going to say this...

Originally Posted by Myk9noseknows

Generic terms of thinking of it:

Probable Cause: 95% certain there is illegal activity

Reasonable Suspicion: 51% certain there is illegal activity

Well, put, probable cause is more probable than not, reasonable articulable suspicion is just a suspicion but you must be able to articulate it to make it valid.

[jedi573]

Originally Posted by Myk9noseknows

Generic terms of thinking of it:

Probable Cause: 95% certain there is illegal activity

Reasonable Suspicion: 51% certain there is illegal activity

Actually, from how I was trained to look at it, probable cause is the 51% - that is, it's more likely than not that they did it. Reasonable suspicion is less than that but just depends on how well you can articulate it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the one closer to 100%.

Andy

[chupacabrachus]

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is left for the members of the jury to decide.

[jedi573]

Of course. The closer I can get my PC to that the better. One of our patrol guys recently got his JD and he's simply wicked when it comes writing his calls.

Andy

[Myk9noseknows]

Originally Posted by jedi573

Actually, from how I was trained to look at it, probable cause is the 51% - that is, it's more likely than not that they did it. Reasonable suspicion is less than that but just depends on how well you can articulate it. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the one closer to 100%.

Andy

No offense, but whoever taught you that is 100% wrong. Any criminal justice official will tell you that. No judge in America will give you a warrant based on something you believe to be 51% true. You need a LOT more than that.

By sheer definition of the term.

Probable: Probably true - 90% sure it's true. I'd put money on it being true.

Suspicion: He looks suspicious, but he's not doing anything all that wrong. My suspicion (gut instinct) MIGHT be true, it's a 50/50 shot. a flip of the coin.

[chupacabrachus]

Originally Posted by Myk9noseknows

No offense, but whoever taught you that is 100% wrong. Any criminal justice official will tell you that. No judge in America will give you a warrant based on something you believe to be 51% true. You need a LOT more than that.

By sheer definition of the term.

Probable: Probably true - 90% sure it's true. I'd put money on it being true.

Suspicion: He looks suspicious, but he's not doing anything all that wrong. My suspicion (gut instinct) MIGHT be true, it's a 50/50 shot. a flip of the coin.

Very true in the real world. In the math world though, 51% is more likely than not.

[jedi573]

Originally Posted by Myk9noseknows

By sheer definition of the term.

No offense taken, brother. But by sheer definition, probably does mean 51% (well, >50%), or more likely than not.

Andy

[Myk9noseknows]

Originally Posted by jedi573

No offense taken, brother. But by sheer definition, probably does mean 51% (well, >50%), or more likely than not.

Andy

Definition:
prob·a·ble (prŏb'ə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Likely to happen or to be true: War seemed probable in 1938. The home team, far ahead, is the probable winner.

51% is not exactly considered LIKELY to happen. If odds roulette are 49% to win, 51% to lose (considering "0" and "00"). Therefore you cannot say you have certain probability to win your bet.

LIKELY (and by definition Probable) is a great deal more than a mere 51%.