Every American citizen should know the 4th by heart. It protects us from "unreasonable search and seizure". When a government agent stops you (a police officer), you have the right to not consent to search. You should always exercise this right. It may seem like a harmless question when the agent asks, "If you have nothing to hide, then you won't mind if I look, right?", but it is not a harmless question, he is asking you to consent to a search and to give-up your constitutional right against such searches. Always say, "I do not consent to searches" and be polite to the agent. The agent may not place his hands in your pockets. He may not open your purse, and if he does these things, he's breaking the law as you have not consented.
> "The agent may not place his hands in your pockets"
Unless you live in NYC, in which case it's an explicitly condoned policy of the NYPD and the city government.
Most definitely unconstitutional, but since it's targeted exclusively at poor minorities, the odds of it ever it getting enough legal playtime is slim.
Wait, they can? Reach into pockets? Are you sure? (I'm not, btw).
I know the NYPD is demanding that people empty their pockets. But you can respond to that demand with a polite refusal, like "I do not consent to any search". Similarly, the police (everywhere) will routinely "demand" that you open your trunk; it's happened to me several times, and while they sure as hell do get pissy when you say "I do not consent to a search of my car", they will eventually back off.
I've read the General Orders for the Chicago PD, but not NYPD's, and consistent with the "Terry Stop" doctrine, the Chicago Police cannot search pockets without probable cause (which is to say, they can't randomly stop people and reach into their pockets).
A much bigger problem with "Stop & Frisk" is that most people will casually waive their rights and, more importantly, will not have the wherewithal to fight a charge (especially not a petty charge) over chain of evidence issues.
> The odds of it ever it getting enough legal playtime is slim.
I have some hope, since people have been fighting for years to repeal the heavily racially-biased 'open to public view' loophole in New York's marijuana laws, and Cuomo and Bloomberg recently voiced support for it (though it was right before the end of the session, so take that for what it's worth).
(For those not familiar with the loophole: in New York, possession of less than 25 grams of marijuana is a civil citation (think speeding ticket) and not a criminal offense. Despite this, NYC arrests more people per capita and by volume for marijuana possession than any other city in the entire world.
Why? Because having marijuana either burning or 'open to public view' is a Class B misdemeanor. So when the policeman says 'Empty your pockets for me; I know what's in there', he's essentially giving the victim an opportunity to incriminate himself for a misdemeanor that gets 90 days in jail, as opposed to a $100 fine with no arrest record[1].)
[1] Disclaimer: I'm actually not 100% sure how public the records for possession citations are; New York does this differently from Massachusetts, which passed a much more sensible law in 2008.
If the officer can articulate (or manufacture later, on the stand) reasonable suspicion, which is a vague standard far below probable cause, it is a Terry stop and he can frisk you for officer safety. The supreme court majority that decided Terry v. Ohio did not adequately consider the consequences of their decision, but it's the law.
If there's anything in your pockets that feels like it might be a weapon of any kind, he can then retrieve it, even if turning your pockets inside out from the start might not be allowed.
Realistically, carrying anything larger than a sheet of paper -- like keys and a cell phone -- will mean that the officer will usually get away with rifling through your pockets.
