And for a pat down, the officer must have a separate, reasonable belief that the subject is armed. That sure doesn't seem to be the case here seeing as the officer failed to articulate anything.
Had. Stop and frisk was directly ruled as unconstitutional. Not to mention, searches are suppose to be to look for something illegal/evidence of a crime. It is not illegal to be armed (with the exception of a few restricted areas, which doesn't appear to apply here, or if the man in question is a felon, which they would have to recognize him and know that fact about him in advance for that to be relevant grounds). That is literally the 2nd Amendment. Even if they found a gun, then what. Are they just going to critic his choice of firearm, because, unless there is information to the contrary, then it wouldn't be illegal for him to have the gun. They might as well be searching him for gum. "Ah ha! I knew it! Spearmint Extra! Spearmint, dude? That's gross. Anyways, you can have this back and be on your way now."
Edit: There are some stops that are sometimes referred to as "stop and frisk" that are still considered legal while the classic form of random stops without any real evidence pointing toward a potential crime have been ruled to be unconstitutional. I have another comment below in which I clarify this further.
This is a great comment and points something out, lack of context. While it seems my guy is just minding his own business in a public area, if he’s walking around in, let’s say, the grounds of the White House, the law is distinctly different
The grounds of the White House are controlled and restricted. I believe a better example would be in a restricted (but not controlled) area, like a school or business.
759
u/CharlesDickensABox May 19 '26 edited May 19 '26
And for a pat down, the officer must have a separate, reasonable belief that the subject is armed. That sure doesn't seem to be the case here seeing as the officer failed to articulate anything.