Originally Posted by
Trollkiller
You are correct that you have no obligation to prove you are not committing a crime. I think where the disagreement is coming from is the amount of suspicion that you feel is required before an officer can make contact and investigate.
Take your Ginger Ale example above. In your mind you do not feel that being 16, holding a green bottle and standing on a street corner rose to the proper level of suspicion to allow an officer to investigate what you were drinking.
In that case you were wrong. Remember that reasonable suspicion is a lot lower than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion equals a possibility that a crime has or is being committed. Probable cause equals a likelihood that a crime has or is being committed.
Reasonable suspicion is enough for an officer to make contact and question you.
Actually you can make contact and question at a lot lower level - like mere suspicion. Reasonable suspicion makes a forced detention possible, should the LEO wish. At less than RS the citizen may break off contact and walk away and there's nothing the LEO can do about it. At RS the officer can keep the citizen there and question them.
Based on the officer's experience and training it would be reasonable for him to think that there is a possibility (reasonable suspicion) you are committing the crime of underage drinking based on the following. The color of the bottle, your age, location and behavior.
Based on the officer's experience and training he knows the following;
- Few soft drink bottles are green, but a fair amount of beer bottles are green
- You are too young to possess alcohol
- A fair amount of underage drinkers hang out on the street corner hitting on girls
Other things he may know that would increase the level of suspicion beyond a reasonable level;
- A convenience store close to your location may be under investigation for selling alcohol to under age customers
- The police received a tip about someone under age drinking on that corner
Yup, yup.