Hello, everyone and welcome to police off the cuff, real crime stories. I'm your host,

retired NYPD Sergeant Bill Cannon, a 27-year veteran of the NYPD.

Folks, we're hearing a lot, of course, about the Luigi Mangione case, and it hinges upon

what we like to call in New York City stop question and frisk and lawyers like to call it stop and frisk

because they like to leave out 33 percent of the procedure which is in their favor because

the question part of it can raise the level of suspicion up at least one level. So the stop and then question, if the person stopped, starts lying and giving incorrect

information or false information to the officers, that can raise the level of suspicion.

And we know the three levels of suspicion are mere suspicion, reasonable suspicion, and of course we know the arrest phase is probable cause.

But attorneys and advocates of or against the police like to call it stop and frisk and not stop question and frisk. And that's

inaccurate, especially the press likes to refer to it as stop and frisk. And every time I have ever

been interviewed on a show, I quickly tell them you're incorrect by calling it stop and frisk. It's called

stop question and frisk. If I gave you a dollar and took 33 cents from it,

would you be happy? No, you wouldn't. So don't take this police procedure that's perfectly legal

and came down as a Terry stop from the Supreme Court. Don't steal 33% of that procedure because you wouldn't be happy

to get 66 cents on a dollar, would you?

And they wouldn't.

So that's a little trick I used to them.

Anyway, so we're going to talk about the Luigi Mangione case today and specifically

the stop from the Altoona, Pennsylvania police, and what does

it mean? What did they do correctly? Did they do anything incorrectly? And are the attorneys

correct in calling for the suppression of the evidence recovered during this stop.

And we'll discuss that and we'll keep an open mind.

...