Application

The United States’ 4th constitutional amendment protects citizens against unreasonable seizures and searches. These prohibitions extend to short stops of vehicles for investigations that fall short of arrest. The stops of vehicles may be legal, but they should only be made after reasonable suspicion. Its determination is assessed based on the total circumstances that surround the incident.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The stopping officer must have objective and particular suspicion for legal wrong doing. This reasonable suspicion should also supported by facts that can be articulated. If such a stop (Terry stop) is valid an officer can search the person if s/he has a reasonable reason to believe that the person may be in possession of a weapon and dangerous (Curran et al. 1985). The officer does not have to be certain of this, but it is stipulated that what matters is that if a reasonable and prudent person would also think the same of the suspect. Thus, conclusively reasonable suspicion should entail a belief that a person has been, will be or is just about to commit a crime and it depends on the circumstance’s totality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Officer Smith’s case study there was no reasonable doubt, because he initially had no reason to believe that the occupant of the car had been, was about to or will get involved in a criminal offence. All he based his stop on was the broken taillight that seemed to be covered in tape, and that is not reasonable suspicion whatsoever, unless it was a breach of the traffic code of rules that he may have wanted to inform the cars occupant.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the pat down of the driver was legal, not based on the initial stop but rather on the emergent facts and suspicion of Officer Smith that indeed a similarly described vehicle...