[bmel17]

2) An alcoholic beverage being consumed isn't by itself enough for reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime. The appearance of this is that of a lawful act with some restrictions/exceptions (<21). The officer needs to develop RAS that you are <21 which would make the legal act then a crime. To do that an officer would need an articulable reason(s) that the person drinking was underage such as wearing a shirt with a highschool mascot in order to justify the stop.

DE has an open container law as well. If your on a public street, open can or bottle is enough. That's why bums have typically "brown bagged" it. No RAS to stop them when they can't "see" what it is. Oddly enough too, it is perfectly legal to drink while riding in a private vehicle as well (21, and no the driver is not allowed!)

[Mr.Skellington]

§ 1315. Public intoxication; unclassified misdemeanor; violation.

A person is guilty of public intoxication when the person appears in a public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or narcotics or any other drug not administered or prescribed to be taken by a physician, to the degree that the person may be in danger or endanger other persons or property, or annoy persons in the vicinity.

Public intoxication is a violation, unless the accused has been convicted of public intoxication twice before within 1 year, in which case the offense is an unclassified misdemeanor.

Bmel is there another section that I'm missing? I'm having a tough time finding this open container law.

[Mr.Skellington]

The officer needs to be able to articulate a specific reason for why he felt you have,are in the process of or about to commit a crime in order to justify stopping you.

That's the ambiguous wording I'm talking about. They need to be able to articulate a reason. Is this the extent of their responsibility? Do they simply have to be able to articulate or or are they required to articulate when requested to do so?

I'll start by saying I'm not entirely sure
Being able to articulate a reason to the courts for your stop is a requirement. The purpose is to ensure that the officer has a specific and legitimate reason to stop someone rather than just harassing anyone they feel like at any time. It has to be this way due to the wording of the 4th:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So the officer needs to be able to articulate what makes the stop reasonable.

The part I'm not sure about is whether or not the officer owes you an explanation for the stop or if so at what point. I'll have to research this more.

[bmel17]

§ 1315. Public intoxication; unclassified misdemeanor; violation.

A person is guilty of public intoxication when the person appears in a public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or narcotics or any other drug not administered or prescribed to be taken by a physician, to the degree that the person may be in danger or endanger other persons or property, or annoy persons in the vicinity.

Public intoxication is a violation, unless the accused has been convicted of public intoxication twice before within 1 year, in which case the offense is an unclassified misdemeanor.

Bmel is there another section that I'm missing? I'm having a tough time finding this open container law.

Nope you are correct. Not a state law, but I believe there is a local Newark Ordinance. Newark PD used to get college kids down there all the time unless it was in a solo cup! I'll see what I can find

[Mr.Skellington]

§ 1315. Public intoxication; unclassified misdemeanor; violation.

A person is guilty of public intoxication when the person appears in a public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or narcotics or any other drug not administered or prescribed to be taken by a physician, to the degree that the person may be in danger or endanger other persons or property, or annoy persons in the vicinity.

Public intoxication is a violation, unless the accused has been convicted of public intoxication twice before within 1 year, in which case the offense is an unclassified misdemeanor.

Bmel is there another section that I'm missing? I'm having a tough time finding this open container law.

Nope you are correct. Not a state law, but I believe there is a local Newark Ordinance. Newark PD used to get college kids down there all the time unless it was in a solo cup! I'll see what I can find

Ok I dug into this a bit more and found your right about the Newark ordinance. Here's the text:
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientId=10128

Sec. 22-83. - Consumption of intoxicating beverages prohibited on streets, sidewalks, near on-premises taverns, and other private properties.2 [265]

(a)

No person shall take off premises any spirits, wine, or beer if the owner or person in charge of a tavern from which said spirits, wine or beer is taken is prohibited from making off-premises sales under the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.

(b)

No person shall possess out of doors any open container containing spirits, wine, or beer within 150 feet of the outside of any tavern or package store licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages.

(c)

Tavern shall mean any business selling spirits, wine or beer by the glass at retail which is regulated under the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.

Package store shall mean any business selling spirits, wine or beer for consumption off-premises which is regulated under the Delaware Alcoholic Beverage Control Act.

(d)

No person shall possess any open or unsealed container, bottle, can, jar, or other receptacle containing spirits, wine, or beer or consume any spirits, wine, or beer on any public street, avenue, or sidewalk within the corporate limits of the City.

(e)

No person shall possess any open or unsealed container, bottle, can, jar, or other receptacle containing spirits, wine, or beer or consume any spirits, wine, or beer on any property not their own unless permission to possess said container or to consume has been granted by the owner, lessor, or lessee, or their authorized agent. That such permission has been granted shall be an affirmative defense which the defendant may establish by adequate proof.

(f)

No person shall possess any open or unsealed container, bottle, can, jar, or other receptacle containing spirits, wine, or beer or consume any spirits, wine, or beer in or on any common area of any apartment building or complex unless permission to possess said container or to consume has been granted by the owner of the apartment building or complex. That such permission has been granted shall be an affirmative defense which the defendant may establish by adequate proof.

(Ord. No. 77-1, 1-10-77; Ord. No. 82-13, Amend. No. 1, 5-10-82; Ord. No. 06-03, Amend. Nos. 1, 2, 1-9-06)

[bmel17]

Thanks, I knew I wasn't imagining that!

[David]

So the officer needs to be able to articulate what makes the stop reasonable.

The part I'm not sure about is whether or not the officer owes you an explanation for the stop or if so at what point. I'll have to research this more.

This only applies if you raise a 4th amendment challenge later. The officer owes you no explanations and most will not offer them. PC can also be developed over time. An officer may simply strike up a friendly conversation. Instead of walking away, you feel obligated to talk or ask silly questions like "am I being detained". You think he's being pleasant when in reality he is looking for conformation of his suspicions.

A stop or "seizure" requires a show of force by the officer. You must, in the eyes of the court, be in a position that a reasonable person would not feel as though they could leave. Example, lights in your rear view mirror, a command from an officer to stop, two cops approach your vehicle with one on either side, etc. This is very broadly defined and is held up to rather difficult standards by the courts. Most people would not walk away from ANY contact an officer makes. But, without a show of force, most courts will assume any information you divulge was consensual.

There was a 4th Amendment claim recently shot down in District Court where the defendant claimed the officer was too nice. He claimed that had the officer been more aggressive he would not have answered the officers questions.

Probable cause is but a fair probability, not by a preponderance of the evidence, nor even a prima facie showing. State v. Tuff, 2011 Ohio 6846, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 5672 (11th Dist. December 30, 2011):

[Mr.Skellington]

So the officer needs to be able to articulate what makes the stop reasonable.

The part I'm not sure about is whether or not the officer owes you an explanation for the stop or if so at what point. I'll have to research this more.

This only applies if you raise a 4th amendment challenge later. The officer owes you no explanations and most will not offer them. PC can also be developed over time. An officer may simply strike up a friendly conversation. Instead of walking away, you feel obligated to talk or ask silly questions like "am I being detained". You think he's being pleasant when in reality he is looking for conformation of his suspicions.

A stop or "seizure" requires a show of force by the officer. You must, in the eyes of the court, be in a position that a reasonable person would not feel as though they could leave. Example, lights in your rear view mirror, a command from an officer to stop, two cops approach your vehicle with one on either side, etc. This is very broadly defined and is held up to rather difficult standards by the courts. Most people would not walk away from ANY contact an officer makes. But, without a show of force, most courts will assume any information you divulge was consensual.

There was a 4th Amendment claim recently shot down in District Court where the defendant claimed the officer was too nice. He claimed that had the officer been more aggressive he would not have answered the officers questions.

Probable cause is but a fair probability, not by a preponderance of the evidence, nor even a prima facie showing. State v. Tuff, 2011 Ohio 6846, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 5672 (11th Dist. December 30, 2011):

An officer striking up a friendly conversation is not the same as being detained which is what I believe we were discussing. If you are being detained then the officer must adhere to the 4th amendment benchmark of RAS to justify the stop otherwise its an infringement to your civil liberties. Probable cause requires more justification than RAS and comes into play during an arrest rather than a detainment/temporary investigative seizure.

The reason for asking "am I being detained" and "am I free to go" is detailed in the OP and is anything but silly.

[David]

Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification.

The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. If there is no detention—no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment—then no constitutional rights have been infringed.

Florida v Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983)

[Mr.Skellington]

Law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment by merely approaching an individual on the street or in another public place, by asking him if he is willing to answer some questions, by putting questions to him if the person is willing to listen, or by offering in evidence in a criminal prosecution his voluntary answers to such questions. Nor would the fact that the officer identifies himself as a police officer, without more, convert the encounter into a seizure requiring some level of objective justification.

The person approached, however, need not answer any question put to him; indeed, he may decline to listen to the questions at all and may go on his way. He may not be detained even momentarily without reasonable, objective grounds for doing so; and his refusal to listen or answer does not, without more, furnish those grounds. If there is no detention—no seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment—then no constitutional rights have been infringed.

Florida v Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497 (1983)

Completely agree.

But the question of whether or not an officer has to inform you of the reason for a detention and if so at which point of the detention (beginning, during, at the conclusion) is still uncertain in my mind. You have said that they do not need to inform you but I believe there may be more to it than that and even if that's the case then I want to be able to cite some official text or case law on that.