Terry Frisk and Identifying Person without ID

episode

Street Cop Podcast not yet transcribed

▲ 0

Transcript

This episode hasn't been transcribed yet Upvotes decide what gets transcribed next — 0 so far. Sign in to upvote

More from Street Cop Podcast

Episode 1027: From Tragedy to Resiliency - Susan Snow’s Journey 57 min · 01 Sep 2026

Episode 1026: Inside the Future of Police Off-Duty Management with Augustus Hellwich 38 min · 09 Jul 2026

All episodes from Street Cop Podcast →

Report any issue

Source

Recorded09 Sep 2021

Publisheranchor.fm ↗

Handlerec:531584

Show notes

In this archive episode, Dennis explains the laws around Terry Frisks and ID. Recorded on 09/26/2017. State v. Lipski, 238 N.1Super. 100 (App.Div. 1990) The Terry frisk and "intoxicated" individuals. When there are no facts or circumstances supporting a reasonable and articulable concern by the officer for his safety," the Constitution prohibits that officer from conducting a routine protective frisk, after ordering a suspected intoxicated driver out of his vehicle. The Constitution does not authorize routine patdowns "absent the officer's belief that the suspect may be armed or dangerous. When a person refuses a consent search it is legal for the officer to advise their next step or steps in pursuit for further action. See State v. Cancel 1992 / State v. Pante (1999) STATE v. PANTE | FindLaw Applying for a search warrant Contacting a K-9 Unit / The threat of calling for a dog is good to go as long as you reasonably believed you could get one. (This requires RAS but you should have it at this point). See State v. Elders 2006 and State v. Baum 2007. Have a K-9 plan mapped out before you need a dog. STATE v. ELDERS | FindLaw https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/a1576-06.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3xp5dboQB7wh29tPhYT4l6eZGcnG2T8wRA5elMZOFVk8M-4FnJLK5eqG8 (https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/mcs/case_law/a1576-06.pdf) State v Baum (2007) http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1377541.html?fbclid=IwAR1d-OxBTUmnqAsNyg1NoKeI0lWXn-oB5aLlWROaEzM2R8WGl1A4O07t2eY (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court.../1377541.html) Because, during the motor vehicle stop, the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion of drug possession at that point, he could threaten the use of a drug-sniffing dog. When there is reasonable suspicion of drugs and the threat to call for a dog is calmly given, as it was here, such a threat will not be considered coercive.

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.