Id. at 2336-37 (footnote omitted). The limitation on Congress to legislatively supersede the Bill of Rights has its counterpart in the limitation on a state legislature to legislatively supersede the Bill of Rights or its own state constitution. In this case, Minnesota’s relevant constitutional guarantee against improper stops and seizures is in the Minnesota Constitution, Article 1, Section 10. Minn.Stat. § 168.0422 is a statute authorizing a “mark” or a “brand” to be placed on a citizen’s vehicle license plate. That mark labels that vehicle’s driver as one who can be stopped, not for articulable suspicion of criminal activities, but rather because of the “mark.” That is impermissible. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981) (<HOLDING>). You might as well make the mark a pink
recognizing that when an informant is shown to be right about some things he is probably right about other facts that he has alleged including the claim that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity recognizing investigatory stop must be justified by objective manifestation that person stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity recognizing that an officer must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the person has been is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity to frisk an individual for weapons and must have probable cause to conduct a further seizure holding that a bare or gut feeling that a person is engaged in criminal activity is insufficient to justify a stop and frisk holding that an areas reputation for criminal activity alone cannot justify an investigatory stop