647:
though with a decidedly different slant. When anyone cites a case as supporting a position, it is imperative to review the cited case, preferably in its entirety, and sometimes cases the cited cases cite, to see if the court opinions actually support the argument. In many cases, the support is far more tepid than the advocate's statement implies, and sometimes the inference drawn from a cited case is off the wall. Consider the number of 5â4 decisions of the U.S. Supreme Courtâif the supposed top jurists in the U.S. cannot agree on a particular area of the law, there's obviously a subjective element. But it is the law of the land in the U.S.; as
71:
53:
81:
163:
22:
1608:
blog as a reference then for such articles as airport security would mean that in that instance, the third party publication should be used directly, instead of his personal blog. Just to clarify; when I say that
Schneier is not qualified outside cryptography, I mean that he does not have any certifications pertaining to physical security or investigation (such as CPP, PSP or PCI), and he's not even a member of ASIS.
1682:
they appear, and some are just plain wrong. Inclusion of such links reflects badly not only on WP but on the editors who add them. I routinely remove such links from articles with which I've been involved for other reasons, but I have neither the time nor the interest to go looking for links to delete. I am by no means a rules fanatic, but when the rules simply follow common sense I see no reason to ignore them.
1630:
airport security, he certainly would be, a priori, a much better bet than an anonymous blogger, whom I don't even think is suitable as an external link. So unless a much better case can be made for SnallaBolaget, I'm going to remove the reference. Again, if it's important that we have this information (and it may well be), it should be easy enough to find a reliable source.
1771:
For instance New York City has come under scrutiny for their use of the Terry Stop. Supporters say that it reduces crime, but civil rights advocates say it is racial profiling. John A. Eterno, a former city police captain describes: âMy take is that this has become more like a âthrow a wide net and
1658:
As for the information in the reference, I do believe it is important that we have it, and I also hereby invite you to dig up another source with the same info - a "reliable" source, that is - since that is so easy (it's not, I dare say). I will expect to see it listed, and I will of course leave the
1629:
I'm not convinced that certificates of any nature make for a reliable source, but they certainly are one element to be considered. Repeated publication by well-respected professional publishers is probably a better indicator. So while I can't say whether
Schneier would qualify as a reliable source on
1623:
I think common sense, even more than WP policy, suggests that an anonymous personal blog is not a reliable source. And I'm not sure it makes sense to distinguish between a âmain sourceâ and other sources. If something is commonly known, no source is usually needed, but it nonetheless should be simple
1353:
I would use the same format for most of the citations as in this article, citing the first precedential cases when that can be done reasonably succinctly. If it's thought that this form is too loquacious, alternatives are possible, but we should discuss them. For example, it's possible to simply give
1224:
article as an "investigatory stop". This could then have subsections on frisking, stop and identify, etc and discuss the different national approaches to these things. I anticipate that some people might respond "only the United States has made this into an issue because its approach to privacy", but
552:
conflates policeâcitizen encounters and identification requirements, so perhaps there could be an article just on policeâcitizen encounters, with individual articles on subtopics such as this one. But I think that's a fairly significant undertaking at this point, and well might meet with considerable
365:
redirects here, and I used it find this article. However, Terry stops do not necessarily involve frisking at all, as the Police Chief article notes. It seems somewhat more reasonable to me to consolidate the stop and identify statutes article with frisking, as this is simply an additional step in the
233:
Can you expand this to cover the scope of Terry? There seems to be a big body of case law regarding the officer's right to stop a suspected criminal (e.g., if the criminal is traveling in a vehicle) without probable cause to seek a "consent" search. (see
Alabama v. White; SCOTUS). Also, the SCT has
962:
Conflated might be the operative point in that pat downs happen in other cases, like of prisoners or in jail bookings and I don't believe that is covered by a Terry stop. Likewise, drug dealers probably use this and other criminal types. Maybe the focus of the article should be on the pat downs and
697:
When citing jurisprudence, there's always a chance that it has been overruled by subsequent jurisprudence, but there's no assurance that a secondary source that's more than a few days old is current, eitherâBray's article was written in 2007, so it's arguably not current, either. In the case of this
605:
remains valid. With the Bray article, we have an attorney for a police department affirming that, as of the date the article was written, Terry still held true. That clarifies things immensely, and in my opinion without a secondary source confirming the relevance of these articles as of a particular
442:
Several of Bray's inferences go far beyond what the cases cited actually support, and that's was the basis for my saying that the article is POV and speculative. In particular, he tends to cite the very conservative Tenth
Circuit, which has some ideas that are very different from other circuits such
1695:
As we've previously discussed, some personal blogs are acceptable, though they should be chosen with care. For example, a blog by a law professor might be fine for giving an interpretation of law in the area of the professor's expertise, though it often should referenced as âAccording to Joe Jones,
1681:
No disagreement that WP policy for sources is routinely violated when it comes to personal blogs and web sites, for references and especially in external links. Though I consider the requirements for the latter to be much less rigorous, there still are many that add nothing to the articles in which
846:
redirect here unless someone can come up with a good reason to have an article that is strictly about frisking. If this article is moved to what I think is its proper title, we could add a brief discussion about the obligation for a detainee to identify herself in some jurisdictions, and direct the
646:
of law, almost any attorney is an advocate; Jeff Bray is no exception. I'm sure he's a capable attorney, and much of what he says is essentially undisputed, but as I mentioned, some of it is speculative, slanted towards a law-enforcement POV. You'd have the same issues issues with an ACLU attorney,
1648:
I'm not going to argue for arguing's sake, but I do think you're being inconsistent. If no source or reference is needed for things that are commonly known, then you should definitely review just about all articles on WP and remove a few million of them. Either you want references (and WP does, in
1607:
I used schneier.com as an example since it's clear that it's a personal blog, and even though
Schneier has had his writings published by so-called reliable third-party publications, the man himself does not have qualifications in the security field outside IT security and cryptography. Listing his
1574:
What has established SnallaBolaget as such an expert? The obfuscatory domain registration would seem intended to preclude verification of SnallaBolaget's credentials. The comparison with Bruce
Schneier, who isn't anonymous and has numerous publications by reliable third-party publishers, is simply
1526:
The article is far too
American. Frisking exists elsewhere, you know? However it is an interesting article and it's amazing how lacking America's human rights are when compared to other parts of the world. There's no way such methods would be standard in the EU. I've heard that cavity searches
321:
The article is POV and in places quite speculative. This is hardly unusual for a prosecutor or counsel for a law enforcement agency, but I don't think it belongs in
Knowledge without a clear indication that it's one person's opinion, and perhaps another citation stating a different POV to maintain
1734:
This isn't an argument for argument's sake; rather, a source that isn't verifiable and reliable is worth no more than an editor's opinion. If material essentially the same as SnallaBolaget's blog entry were incorporated in an article without support, it almost certainly be flagged as needing a
1270:
would go a long way towards addressing your initial concerns with the current redirect. Yes, we should eventually work towards a more global perspective, but lack of material to create such an article should not affect whether we now decide to separate two topics that it seems we all agree are
596:
encourages people to use secondary sources, and there is a very relevant reason to use them in this case: you and I (Knowledge editors) are not reliable sources to say that these court cases remain relevant. You might work directly in this area (I do not) and therefore have some expertise, but
731:
Again, the one great advantage of citing an opinion is that it's what the court actually said rather than what some partisan alleges that the court said. As we both agree, there's always a chance that a later case may overrule, but the only way to manage this (with either primary or secondary
348:
According to the U.S. Supreme Court, a police officer may initiate a temporary stop, a level of intrusion short of an arrest, if the officer can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime.1 This is commonly known as a Terry
357:
that the opinion might make sense, but I don't see that here. So I think it needs to be restored and I would appreciate it if you did it. There are relatively few freely-available sources which are at the level of this article as far as reliability, and the single external link is
1603:
You may be right, JeffConrad, and while I think many would agree on the fact that using such sites as main sources might possibly be against WP guidelines, I don't think using such simple listings as this, a short description of something that is commonly known, is against such.
1354:
the case name and page reference; this is certainly more compact, but assumes the reader will attempt to find the passage and will succeed in doing so. I'm still opposed to secondary sources because it's almost impossible to find one that completely avoids advocacy of some sort.
1659:
current reference up for you to remove if you so wish. I will of course also (with thought to this discussion) remove any personal blog links that I find as references, and expect a (and here comes the oxymoron of the day) first-hand third-party source instead. Sound good?
1347:
article and add some material on how it applies to traffic stops (again, only in the US), and how its justification depends on the totality of circumstances. I'd also be glad to make the move for this article, but don't have much to contribute except for changing the first
1093:
I'd like to allow the discussion to run the normal seven-day course, but unless there's some considerably different comment, consensus seems to favor a split. Since I raised the issue, I'm more than willing to make the initial separation, changing the first sentence in the
1475:, frisking is not necessarily restricted to peace officers and objects sought to be discovered are not necessarily limited to weapons. Objects sought aren't necessarily limited to weapons and drugs, either. I've made simple changes to the lead section to reflect this.
534:
is too POV to use as a source here, though I think it's fine as an external link in an article to which it better relates. I agree that the current redirect to this article is wrong, and if we keep this article, we should change the title and have
Frisking redirect to
1788:. Perhaps the material could be added to this article (a new heading for this and the current second paragraph would seem indicated). But I wonder if this isnât getting away from the topic of this article; perhaps this material and the current second paragraph under
1199:, which is really similar to what I had intended. A move request unfortunately shows only the move, when the intent was simply to reverse the actual article and the redirect. I think the initial split would leave two nearly identical articles (the first sentence in
1342:
is by far the more common term. I'd opt for the latter, because at least for now, we don't cover anything outside the US. If the article were to be expanded to a global perspective, I think the title could be changed at that time. I'll volunteer to create the
409:
was decided) or with several others in Bray's article that are essentially factual. But what you cited is only a small part of the article, which is primarily about a topic on which there is considerable disagreement, and which is largely unrelated to this
433:; it's a very useful and authoritative publication, but it is definitely written as much from the standpoint of advocacy as from impartial presentation of the facts. And it's identified as such in that article, just as are citations of ACLU material.
334:
That's a pretty technical revert. The problem is that this article is entirely uncited - and therefore the reader has no reliable sources to back up its assertions, and it is unhelpful for people looking for something which looks reliable (as
461:. Accordingly, I think we should propose such a page move. It's even questionable whether this article should exist; much of it is repetitive, and there's little aside from the discovery of contraband that isn't covered much better in
352:
So it directly supports the assertion and provides further reading. I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say it is speculative, but almost all articles are speculative in part; if I was citing an opinion from there, then
1249:
As I indicated above, I readily acknowledge that the article lacks a global perspective, and it would be far better to cover countries other than just the U.S. But that's not the immediate issue: the question is whether we create
313:
Aside from a brief mention of when a frisk may be authorized, it has almost nothing to do with the sentence it supposedly supportsâit's about obligations for detainees to identify themselves, and would be more appropriate for
1006:
stop should be removed, and the article expanded to cover pat-downs at airports, sporting events, and sometimes other situations like rock concerts. The general circumstances of pat-downs are quite different from those of a
1558:, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published mediaâwhether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or
520:
The external link in this article seems to work fine for me, and it's considerably less speculative than Bray's article. Unfortunately, it cites extensively from
Connecticut jurisprudence, which is largely inapplicable
1011:
stop: they're usually not performed by peace officers, they don't require reasonable suspicion of a crime, and a person is usually free to avoid the pat-down if he is willing to forgo entry into a particular area or
947:
stop, so it would not apply to an airport search performed by persons who are not sworn officers. But perhaps this simply says that we've conflated two different subjects, and should have two different articles.
1717:âwhether readers can check that material in Knowledge has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.â Should I find a reliable source, I'll gladly add it, but I remind of
1110:
as the title; it actually would be a better fit to the article's content. I would create the initial version of that article essentially by inserting the current content; someone would then need to decide which
1219:
I'm concerned that Terry stop is too US-centric of an article. The idea of the police stopping bystanders is an international issue which should ideally have an international title - this is described in the
1503:
By private security as a condition of entrance to a venue. In the last several years, suits have been filed against NFL teams who require ticket holders to submit to such a search prior to entering stadiums.
993:
to a renamed version of this article was the current lack of a proper article on that topic. I don't think separate sections is the answer; separating the articles would be a much better choice. An article
942:
with some expansion to cover the situation of an airport hand search and perhaps a few others. Inherent in the rest of the article is that the actions are performed by a peace officer in the course of a
456:
stop and a frisk are very closely related, and that the redirect from the former to this article is misguided. The frisk is a subset of the broader issue, so if anything, this article should redirect to
443:
as the Ninth. As I mentioned, this is nothing unusual for a law enforcement agency (or for the ACLU, for that matter). But it's inappropriate to inject into a largely unrelated article such as this one.
766:. The article still needs a lot of work, especially in eliminating some obviously redundant statements. And there is the greater issue of the questionable redirect from the main topic to a subtopic.
1115:
stop content to remove, as well as what to add to cover frisks in other situations. Though details on frisking may be of interest to some, I think that topic's importance pales in comparison with a
1152:, but at present, it probably could go either way. I'd probably defer to whatever consensus emerges. Barring significant unexpected expansions, I think both articles should remain tagged as stubs.
874:. Frisking is the more common term. Pat down would probably be next in line. If the rename was made, how would it make any sense at all in describing what happens during an airport hand search?
1029:
So perhaps I'd clarify the request for a move to a request for separate articles for each topic (ultimately, it would work to about the same effect). I'd be willing to adapt the material for a
141:
1148:
I think it might help to see what others think about which edit history should be preserved in the new articles; until very recently, I would have said that the history should stay with
211:
I'm not just going ahead and merging the articles is because there's no global perspective in either of them. There is also already an article on the underlying US Supreme Court decsion
1830:
If the entire presentation seems too POV, perhaps we should balance it with a differing viewpoint, or condense whatâs currently presented, keeping whatâs thought to be most important.
1282:...â. Eventually, we may find an editor who can expand the article to cover other countries, and perhaps at that time it might be appropriate to move he title to something like
1884:
1709:
I don't disagree that the information may be useful, but unless it comes from a verifiable, reliable source it's little more than âI found it somewhere on the Internetâ; from
570:
have been cited essentially without change in countless cases up to the present. And a secondary source could be equally stale, in addition to potential problems with NPOV.
511:) would probably support a more succinct citation. Some of the other issues (e.g., contraband discovered in the course of a search for weapons) would need to look elsewhere.
1312:
562:
I agree that it's reasonable to have some sources for this article, but they should be reasonably neutral. I'll see if I can find something sufficiently succinct in
1326:
Barring some last-minute input, it looks as though the consensus will be to split the articles. Should that be the result, I suggest that this article be moved to
111:
107:
1562:âare largely not acceptable. . . . Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the
1907:
text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of
405:, so it's hardly the best choice to support a factual statement. I have no disagreement with the passage that you cited (which I doubt has been in dispute since
245:
180:
1735:
reference. Inclusion of this blog as a reference is in a sense disingenuous because, at least at first glance, it implies a source when there actually is none.
1033:
article, but I'd leave the task of expanding this one to others. I'm sure we'd quickly get dinged for lack of a global perspective, but aside from the linked
269:
1416:(and the first sentence would make more sense as well), but something would need to be done to avoid disambiguation. Accordingly, I've not made the change.
397:
magazine is certainly authoritative in stating the perspective of law enforcement, but accordingly, it's definitely POV, much as would be an article by the
1989:
1624:
enough to find a reliable source that supports it. But using an anonymous blog as a source does little more than establish that a WP source is meaningless.
1462:
642:); primary sources are often preferred because they're authoritative and because they aren't subject to spin by an advocate of a particular POV. And in an
135:
1956:
296:
103:
1818:
Iâve merged this material into the article; change the new subsection title if itâs too POV. As before, I think this material may be better placed in
1509:
By others, probably including drug dealers, prostitutes' escorts, and assorted thugs, any of whom might be looking for a wire as much as for weapons.
1934:
for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Knowledge takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators
1575:
not on. I make no direct comment on SnallaBolaget's qualifications or the quality of the cited article, but simply note that the blog does not meet
672:. In theory, a law professor might be a better choice, but even there, one can find support for almost any position by choosing the right professorâ
1999:
469:
article might be that it would save the reader from having to wade through the historical and procedural information in the article about the case.
336:
234:
held that you can Terry "frisk" an automobile (Michigan v. Long). It would be great to see a little about these topics included in this article!
1051:
If this becomes a split and the material is as you say, I'm willing to do the move to preserve the edit history and then someone can recreate the
548:, at least at this time. That article is a separate topic, in addition to being much longer (and much better sourced). The case can be made that
385:
753:
1506:
By private security, for whatever reason, legally authorized or otherwise. Any evidence so discovered is not subject to the exclusionary rule.
592:
I noticed your edits (mentioned in below section). While these are somewhat OK, it is technically not right to use primary sources like this.
1994:
1536:
1942:
from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.
1984:
1527:
are allowed in the USA - it's even mandatory for prisoners when they first arrive in an institution. What a seriously messed up country!--
1772:
see what you can findâ kind of thing. I donât see it as targeted enforcement, especially when you see numbers that we are talking about.â
1521:
1295:
1240:
741:
680:, who would assuredly have a very different take on what's allowable and what's actually done in the course of an investigative detention.
621:
579:
1037:
in the UK, I know almost nothing about similar rulings outside the USA, and would need to look to others to provide the braoder context.
93:
1970:
1236:
617:
381:
1316:
775:
1896:
1489:
I don't anticipate being a major contributor to this, but offer a few thoughts on searches the article might be expanded to cover:
1161:
1068:
1046:
972:
957:
883:
1368:
1212:
900:
stop rather than frisking. Were we to make the content match the current title, we'd have a difficult time justifying much beyond
1744:
1668:
1639:
1189:
1482:
stop should be thinned, because it's only one element of what's properly covered here, and because it's adequately covered in
1541:
1500:
By a peace officer, incident to arrest. Here the search is not limited to weapons. And it's not necessarily limited to frisk.
342:
The authority to briefly detain a person upon reasonable suspicion less than probable cause has become known as a Terry stop;
98:
58:
1892:
1825:
1595:
1617:
1528:
1308:
601:
could technically be superseded by various things, and readers are therefore left with no good source telling them that
1962:
1386:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1225:
I'm skeptical. I did some searching around Google and couldn't pick up anything, but we should try to look a bit more.
896:
stopâ isn't a good synonym for âfriskingâ, I completely agree. My point was simply that this article is really about a
798:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
1813:
1878:
241:
1951:
1579:. The site has a bit of a self-promotional tone, but that's really a minor issue compared with the failure to meet
758:
I've added citations to support the two main premises of this article; more can be added if felt necessary. I cited
1754:
566:
or some of its progeny. It can be argued, of course, that anyone can cite stale precedent; however, the basics of
1883:
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
1434:
once again redirects to this article, with the entire new article gone with no trace in the history. What gives?
339:
does) to cite other than Knowledge. Specifically, the article was cited to support the assertion in the article:
1586:
Either SnallaBolaget's identity and credentials should be established, or it should be removed as a reference.
1839:
1232:
842:
stop than about frisking as such. Accordingly, I propose that we move this page to its actual topic and have
613:
377:
249:
860:
503:
If we need sources, we can easily support the authority to detain and search for weapons by directly citing
291:
1457:
1443:
1425:
998:
might initially require changing only the first sentence of the contents of this article. A proper article
33:
816:
1055:
pat down article. Frisking is not a noun and is not a preferred title. I think that would be OK under
963:
Terry stop is either split out or made a section. Do other countries have an equivalent legal ruling?
848:
549:
545:
483:
430:
327:
315:
1405:
in November 2006, but as it is now written, I see no reasonable way that the two can be merged again.
927:
or other law enforcement agent runs his or her hands along the outer garments to detect any concealed
1939:
1397:
The discussion has run its seven-day course, and there seems to be universal consensus for splitting
309:
magazine is an interesting read, but I don't think it's appropriate here, for at least two reasons:
1226:
607:
371:
171:
1887:. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored,
1784:
stopsâ may not be supported by articulable reasonable suspicion, and in some cases may represent
1532:
264:
dangerous"; the authority to search the area within a suspect's immediate control was covered in
223:
1966:
1600:
______________________________________________________________________________________________
1401:
into a separate article, so I've gone ahead and made that change. That article was merged with
1359:
Again, this is predicated on the proposal closing with what seems to be the current sentiment.
780:
732:
sources) is for editors familiar with the relevant area of law to keep the article up to date.
402:
354:
228:
21:
1392:
1064:
968:
879:
272:
39:
1550:
that a personal blog, especially when the author is anonymous, is generally not acceptable:
1927:
1904:
1900:
1835:
1809:
1740:
1635:
1591:
1517:
1453:
1439:
1421:
1364:
1291:
1208:
1157:
1042:
953:
856:
771:
737:
575:
287:
237:
1858:
8:
490:
stop, the former is well established, but aside from the fairly narrow circumstances of
370:
closely related and it seems clear that directing Terry stop here is not quite correct.
1664:
1613:
643:
639:
275:
834:
redirect to this article is inappropriate. Frisking is but one possible element of at
1947:
812:
1785:
1718:
1060:
964:
875:
420:
184:
1931:
1891:
it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
1831:
1805:
1736:
1631:
1587:
1513:
1449:
1435:
1417:
1360:
1287:
1204:
1153:
1038:
949:
852:
767:
733:
673:
648:
571:
283:
1923:
be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original
486:. Though both frisking and requesting identification are arguably elements of a
282:; suspicion of a crime authorizes a stop but does not per se authorize a frisk.
1776:
The cited article raises a similar issue to that in the second paragraph under
1413:
1331:
1056:
924:
676:
is a good example. I could just as reasonably insist that we cite someone like
669:
668:
In any event, an attorney for a law-enforcement agency is at best marginal for
593:
70:
52:
1978:
1764:
1660:
1609:
1186:
462:
220:
212:
206:
1258:. Though I think you and I originally agreed that frisking is a subset of a
762:
in the first case because I couldn't find anything sufficiently succinct in
706:
in support of what we say; I cannot imagine anything more authoritative. If
1943:
1580:
1576:
1547:
1377:
808:
789:
181:"Edits to Knowledge pages on Bell, Garner, Diallo traced to 1 Police Plaza"
1961:
Why no mention of the recent policy, of stop-and-frisk-zones, in Denmark?
1767:
because it has nothing to do with that case or subsequent jurisprudence:
1710:
1262:
stop, Vegaswikian raises a good point that frisking is not confined to a
677:
1275:
article would be to begin with something like, âIn the United States, a
1266:
stop, so it probably merits a separate article. I think creating a real
366:
process of a Terry stop. Regardless of what happens, these articles are
1819:
1793:
1483:
1472:
1431:
1398:
1272:
1267:
1251:
1200:
1182:
1095:
1030:
995:
831:
827:
466:
458:
362:
216:
86:
1102:
stop that we eventually need to cover. I agree with your objection to
80:
1402:
1255:
999:
990:
843:
823:
479:
162:
1203:
would obviously need to change), but we need to start somewhere.
928:
1221:
1123:
remains one of the most frequently cited cases in criminal law.
807:, and instead by consensus a previous merge has been reversed.
1409:
1408:
As I had mentioned, I think this article should be moved to
1307:
Terry stop should not be in this article, so split it off.
544:
I don't think we should consider merging this article with
494:, the requirement to identify oneself is largely unsettled.
398:
1098:
article, and at least suggesting additional elements of a
1895:
if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
1002:
would require more work; the material relevant only to a
1555:
788:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
426:
1181:, which I think is a better idea than simply moving to
1106:, but I think we could easily deal with that by using
651:
noted, they may not be infallible, but they are final.
1376:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
923:) is a search of a person's outer clothing wherein a
1448:
It now works fineâmust have been a database glitch.
76:
1559:
1286:. For now, I think we should go with what we have.
714:
without also indicating that it had been overruled.
1721:, which again seems to follow simple common sense.
838:stop; moreover, this article is much more about a
710:were not current, we could not reasonably mention
140:This article has not yet received a rating on the
698:article, I just don't see the problemâwe mention
1976:
638:Legal matters are somewhat of an exception (see
1957:Why no mention of the recent policy in Denmark?
1859:"New York Minorities More Likely to Be Frisked"
1713:: âThe threshold for inclusion in Knowledge is
1822:, but at least itâs all in one place for now.
1334:). The other article could properly be titled
1338:, though a quick Google search suggests that
1254:as a real article rather than a redirect to
989:The only reason I suggested a redirect from
1990:Unknown-importance Law enforcement articles
1796:, perhaps under a section to the effect of
1330:, following Vegaswikian's suggestion (and
19:
1471:With the separation of this article from
427:Alameda County District Attorney's Office
345:Bray's article says, among other things:
2000:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
830:â Two of us have suggested that having
507:, though some more recent cases (e.g.,
1977:
1763:I removed the following material from
754:CItations of supporting jurisprudence.
1893:"using copyrighted works from others"
465:. A justification for having a short
219:to there might be the better choice.
120:Knowledge:WikiProject Law Enforcement
1995:WikiProject Law Enforcement articles
803:The result of the move request was:
157:
123:Template:WikiProject Law Enforcement
15:
1985:Stub-Class Law enforcement articles
1478:I think the material relating to a
326:For now, I've moved the article to
38:It is of interest to the following
13:
1493:By a peace officer, incident to a
1463:Frisking outside the context of a
14:
2011:
1930:from that source. Please see our
1856:
1568:reliable third-party publications
1566:has previously been published by
172:mentioned by a media organization
1897:"donating copyrighted materials"
1554:âAnyone can create a website or
851:for a more detailed discussion.
161:
79:
69:
51:
20:
1649:fact, want those) or you don't.
1546:It should be pretty clear from
1271:different. My intention with a
478:I don't agree on consolidating
361:One of the issues here is that
1850:
1458:04:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1444:04:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
1426:04:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
817:20:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
1792:would be more appropriate in
1745:22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
1669:12:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
1640:02:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
1618:21:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
1596:20:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
1542:Anonymous blogs as references
1537:20:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
1369:04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
1317:03:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
1296:03:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
1241:01:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
1213:22:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
1190:21:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
1162:10:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
1069:23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
1047:07:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
973:07:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
958:06:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
884:06:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
861:05:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
742:03:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
622:01:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
606:date they are not really OK.
1952:01:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
1919:. Accordingly, the material
1556:pay to have a book published
305:The article by Jeff Bray in
224:05:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
7:
1522:09:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
776:09:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
580:08:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
386:06:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
99:WikiProject Law Enforcement
92:This article is within the
10:
2016:
1932:guideline on non-free text
1840:04:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
1814:08:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
849:Stop and identify statutes
550:Stop and Identify statutes
546:Stop and Identify statutes
484:Stop and Identify statutes
431:Stop and Identify statutes
328:Stop and Identify statutes
316:Stop and Identify statutes
250:13:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
1911:, but not as a source of
1879:Copyright problem removed
292:02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
139:
64:
46:
1971:07:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
1715:verifiability, not truth
1383:Please do not modify it.
795:Please do not modify it.
126:Law enforcement articles
1696:law professor at . . .â
1336:Investigative detention
1284:Investigative detention
892:If your point is that â
403:National Lawyers Guild
351:
344:
330:under External links.
170:This article has been
28:This article is rated
419:It's very similar to
346:
340:
297:Jeff Bray article in
640:Secondary source#Law
530:In summary, I think
266:Chimel v. California
260:opinion says "armed
1903:, we cannot accept
322:overall neutrality.
644:adversarial system
34:content assessment
1899:if you are.) For
1780:here: that some â
425:published by the
252:
240:comment added by
204:
203:
156:
155:
152:
151:
148:
147:
2007:
1871:
1870:
1868:
1866:
1861:. New York Times
1854:
1826:Maintaining NPOV
1786:racial profiling
1385:
1229:
797:
610:
374:
235:
196:
194:
192:
185:Capital New York
165:
158:
142:importance scale
128:
127:
124:
121:
118:
89:
84:
83:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
47:
31:
25:
24:
16:
2015:
2014:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2006:
2005:
2004:
1975:
1974:
1959:
1881:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1864:
1862:
1855:
1851:
1828:
1761:
1544:
1469:
1412:to comply with
1395:
1390:
1381:
1227:
1035:Stop and search
915:(also called a
793:
783:
756:
674:Arizona SB 1070
649:Clarence Thomas
608:
452:I agree that a
372:
303:
231:
209:
200:
199:
190:
188:
187:. 13 March 2015
179:
175:
125:
122:
119:
117:Law Enforcement
116:
115:
85:
78:
59:Law Enforcement
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
2013:
2003:
2002:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1958:
1955:
1880:
1877:
1873:
1872:
1848:
1847:
1843:
1827:
1824:
1790:Stop and frisk
1778:Stop and frisk
1774:
1773:
1760:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1727:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1643:
1642:
1626:
1625:
1572:
1571:
1564:relevant field
1543:
1540:
1511:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1501:
1498:
1468:
1461:
1430:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1388:
1378:requested move
1372:
1371:
1356:
1355:
1350:
1349:
1320:
1319:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1244:
1243:
1216:
1215:
1193:
1192:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1119:stop, because
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
925:police officer
904:
903:
902:
901:
887:
886:
822:
820:
805:page not moved
801:
800:
790:requested move
784:
782:
781:Requested move
779:
755:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
688:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
585:
584:
583:
582:
557:
556:
555:
554:
539:
538:
537:
536:
525:
524:
523:
522:
515:
514:
513:
512:
498:
497:
496:
495:
473:
472:
471:
470:
447:
446:
445:
444:
437:
436:
435:
434:
414:
413:
412:
411:
389:
388:
359:
337:Bray's article
324:
323:
319:
302:
295:
254:
230:
229:The Terry case
227:
208:
205:
202:
201:
198:
197:
176:
169:
168:
166:
154:
153:
150:
149:
146:
145:
138:
132:
131:
129:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2012:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1993:
1991:
1988:
1986:
1983:
1982:
1980:
1973:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1901:legal reasons
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1860:
1853:
1849:
1846:
1842:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1823:
1821:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1798:Questionable
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1766:
1765:Terry v. Ohio
1758:
1755:Questionable
1746:
1742:
1738:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1628:
1627:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1615:
1611:
1605:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1582:
1578:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:78.155.49.242
1524:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1508:
1505:
1502:
1499:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1487:
1485:
1481:
1476:
1474:
1466:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1393:Article split
1387:
1384:
1379:
1374:
1373:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1357:
1352:
1351:
1346:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1318:
1314:
1310:
1309:76.66.197.248
1306:
1303:
1302:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1279:
1274:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1197:Support split
1195:
1194:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:Support split
1177:
1176:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1010:
1005:
1001:
997:
992:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
974:
970:
966:
961:
960:
959:
955:
951:
946:
941:
940:
939:
938:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
899:
895:
891:
890:
889:
888:
885:
881:
877:
873:
870:
869:
865:
864:
863:
862:
858:
854:
850:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
799:
796:
791:
786:
785:
778:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
743:
739:
735:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
713:
709:
705:
701:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
679:
675:
671:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
650:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
623:
619:
615:
611:
604:
600:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
551:
547:
543:
542:
541:
540:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
519:
518:
517:
516:
510:
506:
502:
501:
500:
499:
493:
489:
485:
481:
477:
476:
475:
474:
468:
464:
463:Terry v. Ohio
460:
455:
451:
450:
449:
448:
441:
440:
439:
438:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:Point of View
418:
417:
416:
415:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
392:
391:
390:
387:
383:
379:
375:
369:
364:
360:
356:
350:
343:
338:
333:
332:
331:
329:
320:
317:
312:
311:
310:
308:
300:
294:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
271:
267:
263:
259:
253:
251:
247:
243:
239:
226:
225:
222:
218:
214:
213:Terry v. Ohio
186:
182:
178:
177:
173:
167:
164:
160:
159:
143:
137:
134:
133:
130:
113:
109:
105:
101:
100:
95:
88:
82:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
49:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1963:155.4.221.27
1960:
1935:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1888:
1882:
1863:. Retrieved
1852:
1844:
1829:
1817:
1801:
1797:
1789:
1781:
1777:
1775:
1762:
1756:
1714:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1585:
1573:
1567:
1563:
1545:
1525:
1512:
1494:
1488:
1479:
1477:
1470:
1464:
1447:
1429:
1407:
1396:
1382:
1375:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1327:
1323:
1304:
1283:
1277:
1276:
1263:
1259:
1196:
1178:
1149:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1052:
1034:
1008:
1003:
944:
920:
916:
912:
897:
893:
871:
867:
866:
839:
835:
821:
804:
802:
794:
787:
763:
759:
757:
711:
707:
703:
699:
602:
598:
567:
563:
532:Police Chief
531:
508:
504:
491:
487:
453:
421:
406:
395:Police Chief
394:
367:
347:
341:
325:
307:Police Chief
306:
304:
299:Police Chief
298:
279:
278:(1969), not
265:
261:
257:
255:
232:
215:and merging
210:
189:. Retrieved
97:
40:WikiProjects
1909:information
1905:copyrighted
1857:Baker, Al.
1061:Vegaswikian
1053:frisking or
965:Vegaswikian
876:Vegaswikian
678:John Burris
242:75.57.74.52
236:âPreceding
1979:Categories
1928:plagiarize
1845:References
1832:JeffConrad
1820:Terry stop
1806:JeffConrad
1794:Terry stop
1737:JeffConrad
1632:JeffConrad
1588:JeffConrad
1514:JeffConrad
1484:Terry stop
1473:Terry stop
1450:JeffConrad
1436:JeffConrad
1432:Terry stop
1418:JeffConrad
1399:Terry stop
1361:JeffConrad
1340:Terry stop
1288:JeffConrad
1273:Terry stop
1268:Terry stop
1252:Terry stop
1205:JeffConrad
1201:Terry stop
1183:Terry stop
1154:JeffConrad
1096:Terry stop
1039:JeffConrad
1031:Terry stop
996:Terry stop
950:JeffConrad
853:JeffConrad
847:reader to
832:Terry stop
828:Terry stop
768:JeffConrad
734:JeffConrad
572:JeffConrad
553:objection.
521:elsewhere.
467:Terry stop
459:Terry stop
363:Terry stop
284:JeffConrad
217:Terry stop
87:Law portal
30:Stub-class
1913:sentences
1719:WP:BURDEN
1348:sentence.
702:and cite
429:cited in
102:. Please
1865:16 March
1661:Murdockh
1610:Murdockh
1403:Frisking
1256:Frisking
1104:Frisking
1000:Frisking
991:Frisking
921:pat down
913:Frisking
844:Frisking
824:Frisking
480:Frisking
410:article.
301:magazine
238:unsigned
221:Otto4711
191:13 March
1944:Diannaa
1940:blocked
1917:phrases
1414:WP:NOUN
1332:WP:NOUN
1324:Comment
1057:WP:BOLD
929:weapons
917:patdown
809:Andrewa
670:WP:NPOV
594:WP:PSTS
401:or the
96:of the
1889:unless
1560:tweets
1222:police
1187:Powers
1012:venue.
868:Oppose
760:Hiibel
509:Hiibel
492:Hiibel
355:noting
112:Assess
110:, and
108:Create
36:scale.
1802:stops
1800:Terry
1782:Terry
1759:stops
1757:Terry
1581:WP:RS
1577:WP:RS
1548:WP:RS
1497:stop.
1495:Terry
1480:Terry
1465:Terry
1410:Frisk
1345:Terry
1328:Frisk
1305:Split
1278:Terry
1264:Terry
1260:Terry
1150:Frisk
1121:Terry
1117:Terry
1113:Terry
1108:Frisk
1100:Terry
1009:Terry
1004:Terry
945:Terry
898:Terry
894:Terry
872:Split
840:Terry
836:Terry
764:Terry
712:Terry
708:Terry
704:Terry
700:Terry
603:Terry
599:Terry
568:Terry
564:Terry
505:Terry
488:Terry
454:Terry
407:Terry
358:dead.
349:stop.
280:Terry
258:Terry
207:Merge
94:scope
1967:talk
1948:talk
1936:will
1885:here
1867:2011
1836:talk
1810:talk
1741:talk
1711:WP:V
1665:talk
1636:talk
1614:talk
1592:talk
1533:talk
1518:talk
1467:stop
1454:talk
1440:talk
1422:talk
1365:talk
1313:talk
1292:talk
1280:stop
1209:talk
1158:talk
1065:talk
1043:talk
969:talk
954:talk
880:talk
857:talk
813:talk
772:talk
738:talk
576:talk
482:and
399:ACLU
368:very
288:talk
273:U.S.
256:The
246:talk
193:2015
104:Join
1938:be
1921:may
1915:or
1380:.
1231:| (
1185:.
931:.â,
919:or
612:| (
535:it.
376:| (
276:752
270:395
262:and
136:???
1981::
1969:)
1950:)
1925:or
1838:)
1812:)
1804:.
1743:)
1667:)
1638:)
1616:)
1594:)
1583:.
1570:.â
1535:)
1520:)
1486:.
1456:)
1442:)
1424:)
1367:)
1315:)
1294:)
1239:)
1235:-
1228:II
1211:)
1160:)
1067:)
1059:.
1045:)
971:)
956:)
882:)
859:)
826:â
815:)
792:.
774:)
740:)
620:)
616:-
609:II
578:)
384:)
380:-
373:II
290:)
268:,
248:)
183:.
106:,
1965:(
1946:(
1869:.
1834:(
1808:(
1739:(
1663:(
1634:(
1612:(
1590:(
1531:(
1516:(
1452:(
1438:(
1420:(
1363:(
1311:(
1290:(
1237:c
1233:t
1207:(
1156:(
1063:(
1041:(
967:(
952:(
911:â
878:(
855:(
811:(
770:(
736:(
618:c
614:t
574:(
382:c
378:t
318:.
286:(
244:(
195:.
174::
144:.
114:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
