The term that we should be talking about is "reasonable suspicion". Not sure what about the OP's situation gave the officer legal, reasonable suspicion.
And that's fine that you think its okay to unfairly treat 99 or 999 people to get that 1 person, but that's not how the law works. The term is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent. Imagine if our courts decided that it was okay to throw 999 innocent people into jail in order to get that 1 actual criminal. Imagine if 99% of our politicians were under investigation for corruption in order to get to that 1 real criminal. What if we decided to organize missile strikes on 99% of the world in order to get to those foreign countries that are actually conducting illegal arms research/manufacturing.
There is due diligence, and then there is complete utter bullshit. Having to walk through a metal detector every time at the airport is due diligence. Having some guy put his fingers in my asshole every time I travel is complete utter bullshit.
Edited to add that I'm just trying to have a civil debate here. I'm not taking offense to anyone's comments here, and nor should you take offense to mine!
Innocent until proven guilty is for court.
No suspicion, mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause are where police are concerned. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt and innocent until proven guilty are not utilized in the field.
My comments about the 1/1000 had the disclaimer "legal" attached to them. I don't care if someone "thinks" what I did wasn't reasonable or legal. As long as I know and a court would uphold my actions, I'm going to do the right thing. That's what I get paid to do, the oath I took, and what the public expects. I am not required (and if we were, nothing would get done) to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a detention, arrest, search, etc. That's for the courts. While some may think that's unfair....the SCOTUS disagrees. If they decide to change their ruling/opinions in the future, I will adjust my behavior appropriately and professionally.
Its funny, if a cop were to come on here and start telling someone how to do their job, said person would lose their shit about how its their profession and don't question them. But everyone is a youtube lawyer when it comes to cops (not directing this at you).
Just from the OP's description of what happened, the officer already had reasonable suspicion to separate them and check their stories. Now, did he have that suspicion before the stop and used it to initiate the stop? Absolutely not (unless he saw him pick up the two women). His reason for the stop was the traffic violation. He then made additional observations which led him to question (not interrogate as some have said) the subjects.
I agree there is definitely a difference between reasonable and bullshit. But, I don't think the OP's encounter is the right example to use for a bullshit one.
I appreciate the civil response and I'm also here for the same. I only post in these LE topics to hopefully shed some light on the perspective of the LEO involved, as its often times easy to forget. Many times I have been guilty of this even in my profession. I'll see a youtube video and think "wow, that's bad, that cop is so screwed." Then I hear all the facts and realize it was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances.
Remember, a cop doesn't "have to be right, he only has to be reasonable." Is it right to shoot a kid who has a toy gun? Nope. Is it reasonable if the kid ran up to someone and pointed what looked to be a gun.......absolutely.
Was the cop here right in his suspicion the OP "may" have been involved in criminal activity? Nope.......he turned out to be wrong. Was he reasonable? You bet your ass he was.
