In this archive episode, Dennis explains the laws around Terry Frisks and ID. Recorded on 09/26/2017.

State v. Lipski, 238 N.1Super. 100 (App.Div. 1990)

The Terry frisk and “intoxicated” individuals.

When there are no facts or circumstances supporting a reasonable and articulable concern by the officer for his safety,” the Constitution prohibits that officer from conducting a routine protective frisk, after ordering a suspected intoxicated driver out of his vehicle. The Constitution does not authorize routine patdowns “absent the officer’s belief that the suspect may be armed or dangerous.

When a person refuses a consent search it is legal for the officer to advise their next step or steps in pursuit for further action.

See State v. Cancel 1992 / State v. Pante (1999)

STATE v. PANTE | FindLaw

Applying for a search warrant

Contacting a K-9 Unit / The threat of calling for a dog is good to go as long as you reasonably believed you could get one. (This requires RAS but you should have it at this point). See State v. Elders 2006 and State v. Baum 2007.

Have a K-9 plan mapped out before you need a dog.


State v Baum (2007)…/1377541.html

Because, during the motor vehicle stop, the officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion of drug possession at that point, he could threaten the use of a drug-sniffing dog.

When there is reasonable suspicion of drugs and the threat to call for a dog is calmly given, as it was here, such a threat will not be considered coercive.