I think part of the confusion (and, most likely, what's tripping up G19G20) is that the word "stop" for LE is loaded language. People say "stop" all the time...I "stopped" for groceries, I "stopped" a person to ask for directions, etc. It's a pretty informal use of the word. But for LE, "stop" has all kinds of connotations and implies - no, requires - a very defined and formal continuum. inre G19G20, you may want to actually read Terry and I'd also suggest reading Byron White's joined opinion. If I were to quibble with anything here, it would be that the jurisprudence revolving around Terry states that the frisking is for weapons, not any/all contraband. In the article (and admittedly, the article does have loaded language of its own), the fellow (Bilal) was stopped and his bag was searched. According to Bilal, the officer was looking for drugs, and the story says the search was to see if "he was carrying anything illegal." First, remember this is but one side of the story and we don't hear from the officer as to why he decided to stop Bilal. That said, there's a fine line here...if an officer frisks a person because he reasonably thinks the guy may be armed and subsequently finds not a gun but a dime bag, the drugs would most likely be admissible. But the exclusionary rule would apply if the search itself was found unreasonable. Wanna kill these ads? We can help!