Frank-
Let me ask you, though. Have you ever stopped someone simply because something didn't look or feel right? You know what I'm talking about: "sixth sense", subconscious observation, out of place in the neighborhood, just hanging out on the street corner, overdressed-high heeled-anorexic-looking-young-woman walking down the sidewalk at 1AM ....you know what I mean.
I've stopped plenty of cars like that with a "pretextual traffic stop". They committed a traffic violation no matter how trivial and I stopped them with the intent of just ID'ing them and running their names and seeing what else might develop. As far as people just walking, no. I've talked to them on a hunch, or followed them or just watched them, but never botherd to stop detain them without at least reasonable suspicion. No reason to really. If you watch someone like that long enough, they'll give you reasonable suspicion. If not, there are plenty more who will. Talking to someone without reasonable suspicion comes under the "free zone" or "voluntary enounter". It's not covered by Terry.
As far as "recalling" suspicious activity, I don't know about that. I would imagine reasonable suspicion would get stale just as probable cause does. Lots of cops might do lots of things that push, or excede the envelope. They're only human, and usually a mirror of the community they serve. Lives have been saved by cops going beyond the boundaries of the 4th. amendment. That doesn't make it constitutional, but in my opinion, it doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" either under certain circumstances.
As far as state laws that make it an arrestable offense to be over a certain blood alcohol content, or intoxicated in public, I think that's unconstitutional. The behavior that society wants to curtail from those types of people is usually covered with "disorderly person" type ordinances. No need to make a separate alcohol related offense in my opinion.
They might have violated the law in 20 states, but whence cometh the jail space, and what of the public angst engendered by such mass arrests as perhaps will take place, or might the government choose to "make a few examples", a tactic that doesn't always work as intended either? Could this sort of thing serve as a "revenue enhancer", and if so, what then the reaction from the people? Might The Court not wish to "reconsider" it's ruling, who knows?
Jail space won't be a problem. The police will likely make certain arrests, take them to the station, run their prints through AFIS, or identify them in some other way, and then let them go with a court appearance ticket to appear later and pay a couple hundred bucks if the judge doesn't let them off. There won't be enough people who refuse to ID themselves or enough cops who are inclined to arrest them when they can use alternate means to identify them to make this any type of revenue generator for states or municipalities.
The thing I find interesting, even funny, about discussions like this, is that in my experience, the people who often stand on their constitutional rights (whether they have an understanding of them or not) when a cop asks them a question that they don't technically have to answer, or asks them, or tries to get them to do something that they technically don't have to do (like leave the house after a domestic dispute, or stay away from the house for a while, etc) are usually either fairly liberal or fairly conservative white males with above average intelligence, above average education, often or even usually from low crime suburbs. Good incomes, etc....These are the SAME types of people who expect and even DEMAND that the police go to extraordinary, and even unreasonable lengths to take care of THEIR problems, whether it's loud music in the neighborhood, traffic complaints, vagrants, BS little ordiance violations, etc. I've been dealing with a pro-life protester that fits that bill for the past year....He "knows his rights" for assembly, protest, demonstration and all that stuff, but when they call to complain about him and I tell him what laws he IS in violation of, he stands there and either plays stupid, or doesn't say anything at all because "that's my right". He could easily talk to me and resolve the situation and let me get on to more important "real policework" things, but he has to be a pain in the ass to the point that me sticking a misdemeanor ticket in his pocket to "let the judge decide" makes me feel quite happy and puts a spring in my step for a couple hours. I normally don't get a kick out of screwing anyone over, but I really don't mind with guys like him.
