That's the biggest problem, as I see it. People aren't aware what protections they're entitled to under the Constitution, and state or federal law.
This is something we used to learn in civics class, but that's something the schools have deemed a "waste of time".
Hence, our children are told "just do what the nice policeman says, and you won't get into trouble".
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many people may not be aware, but Hawaii has some of the strongest fourth amendment protections in the entire country.

When we were setting up for a traffic checkpoint case, I thought it was really interesting to learn about why Hawaii doesn't authorize individuals to be brought out of the car for every offense.  In most other states, it seems that "officer safety" was the only requirement and you could have a person step out of the car.  In Hawaii, they need RAS to get you out of a vehicle, so it has to be something way more concrete!

OK, here's my opportunity to learn something! I've never been asked to step out of my vehicle before, so I don't know this.
What do you mean by RAS?
What do you mean by more concrete? Please give an example! I'm not a lawyer, and I try to be well informed, the myriad laws we have tend to make this difficult.
Thanks!

Here's a sample of why more and more people are filming their encounters with police.  Had the video not surfaced, this man would have been going to prison for years.

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=9440993

I hope the officers are being charged under USC 1983, as if so, they loose their qualified immunity and the individual officer is responsible for any judgments, not the the police department and hence, the tax payers.....

You can go to most youtube videos, and you may see the officer pull the individual over and then ask them to "step out to the side,"  "Come hang out around the back,"  or "sit on the hood" etc.   The thought here is that with the officer being able to completely see the individual they can't grab for anything that isn't on them.  They also can't hide evidence while they are sitting in the car.  In Hawaii, this practice was ruled on after an individual moved to suppress a traffic stop where he turned his vehicle around prior to a sobriety checkpoint  and was followed where a traffic stop was initiated.

RAS is "Reasonable Articulable Suspicion";  it is essentially the Officer's ability to articulate (state, like verbally) why he is asking you do something or why that they suspect you of something.  They may not have to tell you, but they generally do tell the individual if for no other reason to quell the "OMG! WHY ARE YOU ARRESTING ME" stuff.    For example, Officer pulls you over, he may say "Good Afternoon Sir/Mam, I'm not sure if you are aware, but I clocked you going 67 in a 55."  What the officer has done here is articulated why he stopped you (speeding, 67 in a 55).  This is his/her reasonable suspicion that you were committing an offense.   This would also be what the officer puts in his reports and stuff to kind of lead into proving that whatever he did or saw suggested you were doing something bad.

When we say concrete, we are generally thinking of things that may not change often or easily.  For example,  I'm looking for a male with a 6" scar on his face, who has been reported to be in the vicinity of a robbery.   In a sense, just "male" is not very concrete.  I can't just go stop every male on the block and search them.  But, if I had a male with a scar on his face then that might be different.   Concrete can also refer to the 'strength' of something (We have concrete evidence that he committed this offense!).

Actually, you need RS for a terry stop/frisk though there are certain exceptions like mobile conveyance, due to licensing requirements, exigent circumstances, etc.  Example, you can get stopped for a regular traffic infraction and with the plain view doctrine (if you left your weed pipe on the seat next to you, scent of mj, etc) have PC to expand the scope of their search to finding the smallest amount of drugs. Terry stop and production of identification are two different things.  Terry stop also requires that criminal activity be afoot; the frisk requires RAS that you may armed and/or presently dangerous.Also, BOLO is reason for a terry stop since it is articulable facts that an officer is on the look out for. I kind of covered this above dealing with the male and the scar.  We are all sea lawyers so just be careful fighting it. Sure. I'm not a lawyer.  But, I did do legal investigations, read briefs, and study the 4th amendment to help attorneys find loop holes or problems.  It's also covered significantly in my previous academics to include courses on  criminal investigations, Criminal law, criminal procedure, and public law and policy. Biggest question I would ask if this is a Terry stop or voluntary contact.  Just ask if you are being detained or if you are free to go.  If free to go, don't hang around talking - just leave.   Even if they don't say anything, attempting to leave can be beneficial anyways.  If they touch you, order you to stop, and so forth it just increases the amount of evidence in favor of an involuntary seizure.

Also, comply and if the search or seizure (including yourself) was done illegaly it will get thrown out along with everything that follows due to the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. I would say never comply, but do not resist.  Hopefully that is understood.  If you want to smash my window, break into my car and search go for it.  I'm not going to give you the keys. I won't unlock the vehicle.  I won't consent to the search.  I'm just not going to forcefully resist the individual doing it.  Most importantly, let it be known that you do not consent.

I imagined this was what you were talking about with the first post.  The girl was pretty stupid imo!

Darmok - recently in "off topic" you wrote a post about we being here for 2A or to talk about guns... im just curious how this post relates to 2A or guns as it is posted in legal and activism for 2A? Please articulate

Darmok - recently in "off topic" you wrote a post about we being here for 2A or to talk about guns... im just curious how this post relates to 2A or guns as it is posted in legal and activism for 2A? Please articulate

just curious, why do you consider the girl stupid?

Funtimes I was going off of your examples about BOLO's RS, PC, etc.  And when you bring in RS then that is usually a Terry Stop i.e. in LA in certain known areas where individuals do shoot out with the police an officer can articulate that they effected a high risk stop at 9pm at night on a Thursday due to four males between the ages of 18-25 in said vehicle vice Hawaii where that is not reasonable as the only shootout I am aware of was the one with the solo bike officer. 

I agree if consensual then to terminate the contact and leave.  What I meant by comply is to not resist or fight.

For a voluntary stop from a training manual 'an officer may ask questions even incriminating ones, may request but not demand ID, may ID him or herself and show creds, and may seek consent for a search.  There are also factors that a court would look at with regards to whether the voluntary contact became an investigative detention.'

HAWAII STATUTES AND CODES

§291C-172  Refusal to provide identification.

     (a)  Except as provided in subsection (b), any person detained for a violation of this chapter shall provide the person's name and address, or any proof thereof, or both, upon the lawful order or direction of any police officer in the course and scope of the officer's duties pursuant to this chapter.

     (b)  A pedestrian who is detained for violating part VII of this chapter shall provide the person's name and address upon the lawful order or direction of a police officer in the course and scope of the officer's duties.  If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the person is being deceptive or misleading in providing the person's name and address, the person shall provide such proof thereof, upon the lawful order or direction of the police officer. [L 1978, c 111, pt of §2; am L 1984, c 215, §1; am L 1995, c 169, §1]