“Stop and frisk” are commonly said together, but they are actually two separate functions and governed by two separate rules (both of which came from Terry v. Ohio, 1968). What are the two rules and what from our facts justified each of them?
Horton v. California (1990) actually has three requirements. First is that the officer must be someplace they are supposed to be. In our case, if the officer was justified in doing the stop, she likely met that requirement. You said the second requirement is that the officer discovered the item unintentionally. The first case that established the plain view doctrine made that a requirement, but Horton modified it and said that the officer cannot move things to get a better view (such as moving a newspaper to see what is under it). That is not an issue in our case. The third requirement is that the officer must immediately identify the object as contraband (evidence or something connected to a crime). Because it was a frisk under Terry, the rule you are going to tell me about says that the officer can only look for weapon, so even if the officer immediately determined Did our officer immediately identify the objects as bullets, would they (the bullets) be something in and of themselves that posed a danger to the officer or others? If not, she cannot seize them. Thoughts?
Tags: criminal justice legal issues Horton v California warranting police inquiry controversial policing tactic