search, that's another thing. He must have probable cause to take it to this level ( see my other articles on this subject ).

Even though my articles to all of you is primarily against rogue officers, I will and do speak up for honorable officers. They are the backbone of good law en

Hello again,

Another question by another reader. Actually I think this might be the same guy. No, just playing. I'll answer a question by many people or the same person. To ask the question shows they care. This person related to me that while casually walking down the street, the police stopped to ask him did he live in the area, and that while speaking with him, searched him.

I can understand his concern. I have often done this myself.

The real answer is that the police did not search him but frisk him. There is a difference as far as the law is concern. A search is a complete pat down and actual assessment of any articles on his body or on his person. A frisk is a quick assessment for weapons ONLY.

The law gives a police officer the right when stopping pedestrians or drivers to quickly pat down or frisk the subject for weapons. This is to protect the officer from immediate harm. It's basically a brief pat down for obvious weapons such as a large knife or revolver. It might last only a few seconds. In this case the officer was following the law. The subject could have had a gun and hurt him. Now if the frisk turned into a search, that's another thing. He must have probable cause to take it to this level ( see my other articles on this subject ).

Even though my articles to all of you is primarily against rogue officers, I will and do speak up for honorable officers. They are the backbone of good law enf

ice stopped to ask him did he live in the area, and that while speaking with him, searched him.

I can understand his concern. I have often done this myself.

The real answer is that the police did not search him but frisk him. There is a difference as far as the law is concern. A search is a complete pat down and actual assessment of any articles on his body or on his person. A frisk is a quick assessment for weapons ONLY.

The law gives a police officer the right when stopping pedestrians or drivers to quickly pat down or frisk the subject for weapons. This is to protect the officer from immediate harm. It's basically a brief pat down for obvious weapons such as a large knife or revolver. It might last only a few seconds. In this case the officer was following the law. The subject could have had a gun and hurt him. Now if the frisk turned into a search, that's another thing. He must have probable cause to take it to this level ( see my other articles on this subject ).

Even though my articles to all of you is primarily against rogue officers, I will and do speak up for honorable officers. They are the backbone of good law en

earch is a complete pat down and actual assessment of any articles on his body or on his person. A frisk is a quick assessment for weapons ONLY.

The law gives a police officer the right when stopping pedestrians or drivers to quickly pat down or frisk the subject for weapons. This is to protect the officer from immediate harm. It's basically a brief pat down for obvious weapons such as a large knife or revolver. It might last only a few seconds. In this case the officer was following the law. The subject could have had a gun and hurt him. Now if the frisk turned into a search, that's another thing. He must have probable cause to take it to this level ( see my other articles on this subject ).

Even though my articles to all of you is primarily against rogue officers, I will and do speak up for honorable officers. They are the backbone of good law en

o protect the officer from immediate harm. It's basically a brief pat down for obvious weapons such as a large knife or revolver. It might last only a few seconds. In this case the officer was following the law. The subject could have had a gun and hurt him. Now if the frisk turned into a search, that's another thing. He must have probable cause to take it to this level ( see my other articles on this subject ).

Even though my articles to all of you is primarily against rogue officers, I will and do speak up for honorable officers. They are the backbone of good law en

search, that's another thing. He must have probable cause to take it to this level ( see my other articles on this subject ).

Even though my articles to all of you is primarily against rogue officers, I will and do speak up for honorable officers. They are the backbone of good law enforcement. Without them, there would be certain chaos. These good officers don't bring their personal problems to the job to use against you or me. They have learn to separate their personal lives from their professional lives. When I was a police officer, I was not honorable. I was rogue. That's why I will come to the defense of an honorable cop quicker than I put down a rogue officer. These good officers have perform their oath: namely, to protect and serve. And another thing, if you meet an honorable officer, show him respect. Not because he's the 'police', but because he has learn to control his power in a way that's fair. Take care!