the bill includes a provision t create a permanent office that will be tasked with investigating reports of ufos. that office would carry out a department like bases the mission currently by the unidentified real phenomenal task force. we led the pentagon for years, and he joins us tonight. thank you so much for coming on. so what would this do if it becomes law, and we do we need it? tucker, this is historic. first of all, we absolutely nee it. it s a long time coming and frank they we should ve had it decades ago. but it is historic and it s historic for several reasons. in this obscure five pages. it really says a lot in fact, i first of all, it creates an environment where it doubles it just establishes the uap task for which is the temporary
and ask a judge for a warrant? reasonable suspicion can be traced back to a case called terry v. ohio where a pat down of suspects if they had reasonable suspicion they had a weapon for their own protection. that obviously has objective elements to it. in this case you re saying these two people might be different in terms of whether they have correct papers on them. it s very hard to imagine how you could have an objective and constitutional basis for doing that type of thing. any citizen can sue any officer who does not enforce this law, i m paraphrasing the sheriff there. is that constitutional? well, it is probably constitutional for the state to say it. in my view it s a perfectly ridiculous provision t is so subjective i can t imagine how a court is going to deal with it. it talks about suing people for, quote, policy that s don t allow, quote, the full enforcement, closed quote, of
terry v. ohio where a pat down of suspects if they had reasonable suspicion they had a weapon for their own protection. that obviously has objective elements to it. in this case you re saying these two people might be different in terms of whether they have correct papers on them. it s very hard to imagine how you could have an objective and constitutional basis for doing that type of thing. any citizen can sue any officer who does not enforce this law, i m paraphrasing the sheriff there. is that constitutional? well, it is probably constitutional for the state to say it. in my view it s a perfectly ridiculous provision t is so subjective i can t imagine how a court is going to deal with it. it talks about suing people for, quote, policy that s don t allow, quote, the full enforcement, closed quote, of
reasonable suspicion can be traced back to a case called terry v. ohio where a pat down was allowed by officers of suspects if they had reasonable suspicion they had a weapon for their own protection. that obviously has objective elements to it. in this case you re saying these two people might be different in terms of whether they have correct papers on them. it s very hard to imagine how you could have an objective and constitutional basis for doing that type of thing. any citizen can sue any officer who does not enforce this law, i m paraphrasing the sheriff there. is that constitutional? well, it is probably constitutional for the state to say it. in my view it s a perfectly ridiculous provision t is so subjective i can t imagine how a court is going to deal with it. it talks about suing people for, quote, policy that s don t allow, quote, the full