maestro pistolero
New member
Perhaps the Terry pat, but not the vehicle search. Since their is some level of indication the person might be armed, (because of the existence of the CHL combined with the refusal to answer a specific question about weapons, if that were the case) then a Terry pat doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the purposes of officer safety. The legal threshhold for a quick weapons pat is pretty low, as I understand it.. . . but if you decide for whatever reason to ask if he has a weapon and he flat-out refuses to answer, I agree that should raise your suspicions, and would probably serve as justification for a Terry frisk and vehicle search.
Not answering questions does not weigh in at all in justifying a vehicle search because of the 5th amendment.
How am I doing Wagonman?