Talk:Terry stop/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article separation

I've separated this article from Frisking based on universal consensus on the Talk page for that article. When the redirect for this article was made in November 2006, the two articles were reasonably similar; however, a Terry stop involves much more than a frisk (and doesn't even always allow one), and a frisk can be done in circumstances other than the doctrine of Terry and by persons other than police, as several editors mentioned. Consequently, I don't think the two topics can be treated as essentially the same.

In most cases, I've cited the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that established precedent, and quoted sufficiently from those cases to support the point, saving the casual reader from having to examine the cases themselves. As a consequence, the notes are admittedly bulky. As relates to traffic stops, an alternative would have been to use Justice Ginsburg's opinion in Arizona v. Johnson, which summarizes most of the earlier Terry jurisprudence; however, I thought including the original cases would be more authoritative and more informative. Mentioning Johnson allows the reader to confirm that the earlier cases are still good law as of 2009.

Additional material, such as when a detainee may be handcuffed, should probably be added. I've left that as a task for another time and perhaps other editors. JeffConrad (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

When you split articles, please consider whether any tags on the Discussion page should follow along. I've tagged this one for WikiProject Law Enforcement, like Frisking, and also added WikiProject Law. —johndburger 15:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Omissions

I can't find a place to put this in the article, but I was reading this article: Montreal: Library heaven, police hell, about a woman being constantly being stopped by police for walking barefoot and it seems that Terry stops can also be made on suspicion of mental incapacity. If so, this information should be added by someone who can find a space.--Auric (talk) 02:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Nature of the holdings in Mimms and Miller

In carefully reviewing these cases, I cannot find support for the language I used several years ago, so I’ve revised it to strictly reflect what the Court actually said. Although the Court did not expressly require that a peace officer cite particularized concern for his safety, they did not expressly say that it was unnecessary, either.

The clarification of “federal law” is also important, because the Supreme Court, empowered under Article III of the US Constitution, cannot really grant “authority” to a peace officer; rather, they are limited to interpretation of laws and review for conformance with the Constitution, as they make quite clear in the citation from Mimms.

I’ve added a tag to the assertion that state law may not allow drivers or passengers to be ordered to exit the vehicle; though this assertion may be correct, it’s pretty sweeping, and needs support. It may be particularly significant in light of the Death of Sandra Bland. Many pundits have insisted that Ms. Bland’s failure to exit her car when so ordered provided cause for arrest, usually citing Mimms and Miller, and perhaps Texas Transportation Code §542.501. The Supreme Court holdings were of course limited to the Fourth Amendment, and did not (and could not) consider whether refusal to exit a vehicle after being so ordered violated state law; unless the Commerce Clause of Article I is somehow involved (and this seems unlikely), that would be a matter for state legislators to regulate, and state courts to interpret. Some states well may have done so; however, I have been unable to find anything close to dispositive, and have not seen anyone else do so. I am not going to make a project of running this down, but if someone else can provide this information, it would seem a great addition. Hopefully, any such reference would cite real decisional law that is unambiguous to the average reader, rather than a mere assertion by a third party (if the third party cannot cite authority, that party’s assertion is suspect). JeffConrad (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

“Police” vs. “peace officer”

I do not understand the suggestion that “peace officer” or “law enforcement officer” is strictly the proper term needs support; I think the linked WP article makes it quite clear that either of these terms—which refer to a superset of “police officer”—are the strictly correct usage. I used “police” simply because in some other articles, other editors—usually IP—kept changing it to “police officer,” and the bickering seemed a poor use of time. And I reasoned that if the Supreme Court can use “police”—correctly or otherwise—we cannot be faulted for doing so here. Whoever added that tag did not give a reason; absent some good reason to keep it (or perhaps a suggested rewording of the note), I’m inclined to remove the tag. JeffConrad (talk) 03:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

states list

Please do a list of U.S. states that this is applicable in. I know this is listed on other pages, but people might only know this term, and might really need to know their rights. That might be more important. 68.167.161.179 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It’s applicable in all states. Bear in mind what “applicable” means, however—simply that a Terry stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures; the consequences of failure to cooperate with such a stop usually depend on state law. Some states (e.g., Nevada) specifically grant a peace officer the authority for such stops, and when such authority has been granted, failure to cooperate may provide grounds for arrest (as was the case when Dudley Hiibel refused to identify himself).

Determining one’s rights is not a simple matter, because the rights depend not only on a state’s statutory law, but also on the state courts’ interpretation of the law (e.g., Kolender v. Lawson deferred to the interpretation of the California statute by the California appellate court in People v. Solomon (1973); conceivably, an identically worded statute in another state, given a different interpretation by that state’s courts, could have led to a different result). JeffConrad (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Not Just in NYC

This is **NOT** just in NYC.

I live in Fl. and I've been stopped and asked for ID. This only happens when skateboarding. I'm white BTW. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

But this article doesn't mention any special connection to New York City (other than a hatnote for disambiguation and a "see also" link as a related topic). Do you suggest for something in the article to be changed? —BarrelProof (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Text in footnotes need to be placed in main text

I understand that this is a typical legal journal style of placing lots of content in the footnotes, but I think the average reader would be better served if the text in the footnotes be placed in the main text.

This article has something of an "original research" issue -- WP:NOR. The article would benefit from some expansion but, given Wikipedia's policies, pulling quotes from case law as presented in the footnotes and putting it into the main body of the article does not strike me as the way to approach that issue. Arllaw (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Arllaw: Hi and thanks for adding to the discussion! Just so you know, I'm very new to Wikipedia, so I'll probably defer to you in regards to the best approach. One thing to mention is there is a page for Terry_v._Ohio, so it might be better to delete this page and add anything of value to that plus do a redirect... Stop and frisk is redirecting there now.

Also, I would like to link up information about Terry stop with the page on Consent search and a page needs to be created on Pretextual stop, which currently redirects to Driving while black. So, get either a template for the bottom of the page or on the righthand side...something like Template:US4thAmendment, which is about case law.

Well, back to fixing the footnotes...can you point out to me where the "original research" is and what is the best way to fix things. I'm willing to do more research and add a paragraph or two to the article. Especially missing is the controversy that surrounds this issue. Seahawk01 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Pretextual stop should not redirect to Driving while black. It probably should be developed as a stand-alone article, as it's an international issue.

This article could be merged into Terry v. Ohio, as that case is the origin of the term and concept, and as the term is also a uniquely U.S. term.

I suggest reviewing these articles: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Arllaw (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Arllaw: and thanks for your help. I have rethought merging this with Terry v. Ohio for two reasons. First, because the other page is case law, while a "terry stop" is more of a description of police procedure. Second, I think it will be easier to work here, since this is currently a pretty sleepy part of wikipedia :-)

Agree again that "Pretextual stop" should be own page. It is a very important issue. Right now I am planning on putting in a few hours a week to this, so I see getting things in shape over the next two months. For me, first will be to rework this and Consent search, plus I want to do some work on Traffic stop

I added a navigation sidebar. Please see new post below.

Also, thanks for the links on policy, I will read them over this next week. Seahawk01 (talk) 05:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jennkay111.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Moved notes

Moved notes I had here to User:Seahawk01/Talk:Terry stop.

Seahawk01 (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Racial Component

Hi all, I was reading through this article and while it does great in defining what a terry stop is, I don't feel like it adequately describes the racial component, especially since Terry stops disproportionately affect Black and Hispanic communities. Because of this, I'm considering adding to this article. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to check out my user page, where I have started compiling sources for this! Angelalin79 (talk) 02:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Update

Hi all, I started writing my revisions in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Angelalin79/Terry_Stop. Feel free to visit and leave me any suggestions! Angelalin79 (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm concerned that this article isn't particularly factual/NPOV in its tone. The third paragraph of the lead, and the racial disparities section, could use some work. I'd suggest presenting these findings with a lot more attribution instead of as fact. For example, switching to "Multiple recent studies conclude X" or "A 2017 sociology article found that X". That's assuming that these conclusions about how racist Terry stops are is WP:DUE and reflected in the sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Angelalin79.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)