y, the police may not carry out a full search of that person or their car. Additionally, the police may not attempt to verify their suspicion by actions that approach arrest. In this case Royer purchased a one way airline ticket at the airport under an assumed name, and then checked two of his bags. While waiting at the concourse, two police detectives approached Royer. They approached him because he fit the profile of a narcotics courier. They requested to see his driver’s license and ticket, which he handed over. They then questioned him about the discrepancy in the name on his license and the name on his ticket. Then they informed him that they suspected him of transporting narcotics, and without returning his license or ticket, they asked him to accompany them. They took him to a small room, and they also retrieved his luggage from the airline. They asked him to open his luggage. He did so, and the detectives discovered narcotics in it. The Supreme Court held that Royer was illegal detained and searched. Although the facts and circumstances are somewhat distinguishable from Ms. Jones’ case, the holding of the court on is point. Officer Smith had the right to make the investigative stop on Ms. Jones. However, without probable cause, the investigative stop should have been no more intrusive then a protective pat down for weapons. At no point should arrest, or conditions similar to arrest, have been used on Ms. Jones without probable cause. On the hand, the prosecutor could argue that under Wardlow, Officer Smith observed enough evasive and suspicious behavior to make a judgement of reasonable suspicion. They will draw analogy to the fact that in Wardlow, unprovoked flight could be used as the basis of proof of reasonable suspicion. Moreover, they will argue that the combination of flight from the traffic stop and Ms. Jones’ disregard of Officer Smith’s commands will easily yield reasonable suspicion. On this c...
