Smith v. United States Merit Systems Protection Board

How later courts describe this case

• noting that “the drawing of weapons will sometimes be a reasonable precaution for the protection of officers and bystanders”
• finding that call by dispatcher suggests existence of reasonable suspicion, and finding that police officer is not constitutionally required to be “certain” that a crime has occurred when he makes a stop
• stating that a brief but complete restriction of liberty is valid under Terry
• finding that a call made by a dispatcher suggests the existence of reasonable suspicion, and finding that a police officer is not constitutionally required to be "certain" that a crime has occurred when he makes a stop
• upholding the dismissal of section 1983 claims against two private defendants because the defendants had not acted in concert with nor received significant assistance from the municipal defendants
• conspiracy claims dismissed because they were “so vague and unsupported by description of particular overt acts”
• defendants’ presence in only one action militates against abstention
• “ ‘There is no reason why an officer, rightfully but forcibly confronting a person suspected of serious crime, should have to ask one question and take the risk that the answer might be a bullet.’ ” (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 33, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1886, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968