end of the spectrum, US v. Mendenhall, 446 US 544 (1980), is an example of the suspect giving full permission for a search and seizure. Mendenhall gave the officers permission to talk with her and to search her person and possessions. She had demonstrated characteristics of a person unlawfully carrying narcotic, which gave the officers probable cause for making the stop.In determining whether or not the subject is being detained and arrested, US v. Hammock, 860 F.2d 390 (11th Cir. 1988), states that:These circumstances include the blocking of an individuals path or the impeding of his progress; the retention of a ticket or piece of identification; an officers statement that the individual is the subject of an investigation, or that a truly innocent person would cooperate with the law enforcement officer; the display of weapons; the number of officers present and their demeanor; the length of the detention; and the extent to which the officers physically restrained the individual.Am Jur contains a practice guide for probable cause, and reads as follows:The officer must articulate something more than an inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or hunch; instead, the Fourth Amendment requires some minimal level of objective justification for a police officer to make such a stop. However, that level of suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and is less demanding than the level for probable cause; there must only be a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found for a stop and frisk procedure to be implemented.All of these examples show that the officer illegally detained Ms. Wine, and therefore, the content of the search should be considered invalid. Ms. Wine should therefore try a suppression motion to get the evidence dismissed. If that somehow fails, Ms. Wine will have to follow Mr. Johnnie Walkers actions to comply with the FAA.All three of these cases dem...
