I'm not the poster but truthfully all the shows (like Live PD, Live Rescue, etc) they usually as the question of "do you have any weapons" or "do you have anything that would hurt me, stab me, etc" (though that's usually when they are patting them down) if they are bringing up the question. Phrasing it as assuming you don't have weapons could open the officer for a potentially fatal mistake.
Based on nothing but my thought that it should be sop to check for weapons. But, as the pp said, she was wearing summer clothes so a lot easier to see she’s not hiding anything. I honestly wasn’t trying to start anything, just what my thought was.
Thank You, I didn’t think you were trying to start anything. I just wanted to say that in real life, we don’t automatically ask that question for several reason. The Traffic stop of Brian and Gabby would be classified as a Terry Stop. A
Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly
detain a person based on
reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than
probable cause which is needed for
arrest.The United States Supreme Court held that where: (1) a Police Officer observes unusual conduct by a Subject; (2)
The Subject’s conduct leads the Officer reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and that the Subject may be armed and presently dangerous; (3) the Officer identifies himself as a policeman; (4) the Officer makes reasonable inquiries; and (5)
Nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel the Officer’s reasonable fear for safety, the Officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the Subject in an attempt to discover weapons, and that such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourteenth Amendment, so that any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence. . In this case, as a PP has already said, Gabby was wearing very little clothing so a pat down of her outer clothing was unnecessary and may have escalated her already fragile mental state.
On most of the TV shows that the PP listed, the officers are asking that question before effecting an actual arrest. This is what is referred to as
a search incident to arrest (SITA) The search incident to lawful arrest exception to the general search warrant requirement was first discussed in Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that an arresting officer may conduct a warrantless search of the arrestee and the area within the arrestee’s immediate control. The
Chimel opinion determined that officer safety and the need to prevent the destruction of evidence were two justifications for allowing police officers to conduct this type of warrantless search. In
United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court held that during a lawful custodial arrest, a full search of an individual constitutes a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. It also held that a full search of one’s person following a lawful arrest is an exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.
However, a search must be incident to an actual arrest. A search cannot be conducted based on probable cause that might have led to an arrest. See
People v. Evans, 43 N.Y.2d 160, 165 (1977).
Again, I know you weren’t trying to start anything, but I just wanted to show why basing an opinion based on something we’ve seen on TV or a movie doesn’t always hold up in real life. That’s why lacking legal context or training makes even the Real PD, cops type shows a terrible place to learn about policing.
