# Jones v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · May 12, 1986 · 718 P.2d 712

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5160776

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerrold Don JONES v. The STATE of Oklahoma
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** May 12, 1986
- **Citations:** 718 P.2d 712; 1986 OK CR 68; 1986 Okla. Crim. App. LEXIS 258
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brett
- **Judges:** Bussey, Brett, Parks
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5160776

## Opinion text

BRETT, Judge:
Specially Concurring.
While I concur in this decision, I believe the full statement made in Lundsford v. State, supra, should be repeated. At page 1344, the decision states:
It must be further recognized that a police officer may stop and question a person if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the person is wanted for past criminal conduct. See, United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 , 101 S.Ct. 690 , 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981). The officer must be “able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 , 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1880 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). The U.S. Supreme Court further stated in Terry v. Ohio, supra, that “[t]his demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.” See also, Sowell v. State, 620 P.2d 429 (Okl.Cr.App.1980).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5160776. Public record. Not legal advice.