to do this, you must have the probable cause that is required to place a person under arrest." If "probable cause" for arrest does not exist, then "probable cause" for a "stop and frisk" does not exist. It was argued that, simply because Officer McFadden's intuition led him to believe that a crime was about to be committed, this gut-instinct was not a court-acceptable version of "probable cause." The term "probable cause" is defined, literally, as "the existence of facts and circumstances within one's knowledge"...sufficient believe that a crime has been committed, is in the process of being committed, or is about to be committed. Stokes based his case on the idea that Officer McFadden, at the time of his physical arrest of Terry, did not possess "probable cause" good enough to justify such an action and that therefor, the guns recovered in the following search were inadmissible under the "exclusionary rule".
             Reuben Payne was the attorney for the State. Mr. Payne asked the Court to see the necessary parallel between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." He asked the court to hold that "for his [McFadden's] own protection, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these m
             ...