TexasCHLforum.com

casp625 wrote:

Liberty wrote:

casp625 wrote: There has to be reasonable suspicion of a crime AND they believe you are armed and dangerous. Speeding by itself wouldn't justify a pat down but there is nothing stopping the officer from doing so. Your only recourse would be to complain later of a violation of your rights.

Of course, handing over your CHL let's the officer know your armed so a pat down would seem redundant since they could easily ask you where your firearm is located

If you are stopped for a traffic violation, you have indeed commited a crime. They don't have to articulate a reason that you are armed and dangerous. They could just be the nervous type or part of their SOP and pat you down. What a Terry stop isn't, is a search of your vehicle, cell phone or wallet.

I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but this is what they have both told me.

You missed the "AND" in my post. Police do indeed have to have reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime or about to commit a crime AND they can reasonably articulate why they think you are armed. They don't have to articulate to you what their suspicion is but it has to be justified nonetheless. The whole Terry case focused on a group of men the officer believed was about to commit a robbery. How exactly is speeding a reasonable belief one is armed and dangerous??

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 16.

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [p3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1