Review by donalddozier

I love the show but one small thing that drives me crazy that officers do on the show, the same as in reality but it seems the panel is unaware of accurately understanding a simple court ruling. TERRY v. OHIO. I see the officers, as most officers do, performing the "Terry Search" of virtually everyone they encounter and hear the panel commenting that police can "frisk" everyone they encounter, a "pat down" to ensure they are not armed. This simply is not true. "A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity". This must be based ""specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch". They use the "consensual contact" reasoning which is true in some but not all of the situations on the show. In a "consensual contact" situation, the person must be able to, without interference from law enforcement, be free to leave by saying they are not interested in talking or saying nothing at all and walking away. To do a "Terry stop" "frisk" the police must have "reasonable suspicion the person is armed and dangerous", a fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her. This does not include going through pockets or asking the person to empty their pockets (which is the same as if the officer did it himself). They act as if they cry out TERRY STOP that they are free to do as they please. Not true.