Originally Posted By: woodchuckc
Just based on the original article Grizzly posted and what Bambi Buster posted, it would seem like the dude shouldn't have been stopped by the police. If the police stopped and searched him because he was wearing a bulletproof vest and he wasn't in the commission of a crime, he wasn't doing anything wrong according to that statute. They didn't see or find the illegal gun on him until they patted him down.

I think he is a scumbag and at the least a bully, and probably has plenty of crimes in his background, but he may have a pretty good case to get these charges dropped if he was searched just because he was wearing a BP vest.


The original article, as is usually the case, is not well written and provides insufficient information to make a call. However, it is not always necessary for an officer to have probable cause to believe a crime is being committed in order for him to legally stop and frisk and individual. This has been the national legal standard since 1968. I generally don't advocate Wikipedia as an authoritative source, but in this instance, the article at the link below gives a pretty good synopsis of what I'm speaking of here. Totality of circumstances and reasonable suspicion (not the same as probable cause) are the key phrases here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio
_________________________
"The American military is like a finely crafted sword. To be effective, it must be wielded by a discerning, skilled and merciless hand."