"Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Suspicion" are two different things. It says right there all your need is "Reasonable Suspicion" not "Probable Cause".

PROBABLE CAUSE - A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.

"reasonable suspicion," although some people call it articulable suspicion or more than mere suspicion. It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring. Note that arrest, search, and seizure require probable cause, or what a "reasonable person" would believe. Stop and frisk, by contrast, requires what a "reasonable officer" would believe. Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a hunch.

How are we going no where? I proved you WRONG and you can't let it go. You said you can't do a "PAT DOWN" otherwise known as a "TERRY FRISK" and I showed you where you CAN!!!!!! Again probable cause and reasonable suspicion are 2 DIFFERENT things. The SUPREME COURT says you can do a "Terry frisk of the vehicle if you have "reasonable Suspicion a crime is being commited, the only thing you can't do is open locked compartments or trunks. EXAMPLE: I stop a car, the driver starts moving around alot and looks like he/she shoves something under his seat. Through my experience I could articulate that he might be shoving a gun under his seat. Therefore I can do a "TERRY FRISK" of the vehicle. You can keep thinking you're right, we will all just know your not.

 

Im confused.....can we rehash this again?

 

Grow up son. We were discussing vehicle searches and you brought up this irrelevant item, Pat Down. Which has little relevance to the subject of a motor vehicle search and seizure. Obviously, the officer didn't search the car do to reasonable suspicion, but the sight of the nitrous bottle was the point where probable was inacted.

You didn't not prove me wrong in any point, shape, form or fashion. All you are doing is going on uncredible .com websites and copying and wasting from there. How about you leave the internet search engines alone and use your own head. This is what happens when you cheat in class, you can't think for yourself.

Probable and reasonable are like Cola and Pepsi, both cabonated and classified as soda, but taste different.
Reasonable is the reciprocal of probable and vice versa. You have to have one or the other to have a case.

Look at what you wrote above - "The SUPREME COURT says you can do a "Terry frisk of the vehicle if you have "reasonable Suspicion a crime is being commited" Let me analyze and break this down for you. The key word is "being", meaning IN PROGRESS. Intent, Committed and Commiting are all three different participles;Future, Past and Present. In reference to your above post, you are negating your argument by quoting that.

No license plate: BECAUSE the license was already removed, the crime (violation of the law) was already commited. Nirous bottle in car and bolted down, the crime was already committed. This puts the situation in past tense therefore making the reasonable suspicion argument inadmissable in court according to your argument. Your example above is in the present tense not past. Once you're in the past tense, it's an entire different ball game.

 

This guy U2SLOW4ME has no clue what he is trying to prove. He is trying to make an argument but is too caught up in using internet search engines to argue a point he is nieve about that he has lost himself. Apparently, he is 2SLOW4HIMSELF.

 

I know Exactly what I'm talking about. I attended the #1 rated Police Academy in the State and passed with and A Average. Did you? Obviously not. When I first made my statement way back I simply tried to say maybe the officer did a "PAT DOWN OR TERRY FRISK" of the vehicle and not a search. Most citizen's would not know the difference. You said that it can't be done. I showed you where you can. You also said that you had to have a permit for the Nitrous. I showed you state law that say's otherwise and you posted Federal law that still does not mention anything about a permit. State Officer's do not enforce federal law. Thats what the Fed's are for or D.O.T. certified officer's for Trucks. I don't see what is so hard to understand for you. As far as comparing them to coke and pepsi I don't see how they are anything like that. Maybe you should try using a search engine. It is alot easier to get the wording correct for all statements in Case law by doing an online search due to the fact that it is not in the Texas PC or CCP. All stements that I copied came from THE FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING DIVISION. Not some bs website.

 

Please contact the Law office of Steven Rosen. One of the best law firms here in Texas. Google Search it. I rest my case.

 

"Nirous bottle in car and bolted down, the crime was already committed."


No crime in having the bottle in your car!

 

c5_ls1_6spd what is your occupation?

 

Let's put away those nightsticks, boys.