A Terry interaction between a police officer and a person is fact specific, based on the “totality of the circumstances.” Motions to suppress are won and lost entirely on the facts. That judicial circumstance encourages police officers to testify about selected facts, slanted facts, and imaginary facts which justify their official actions. Absent a definitive legal standard, each suppression hearing is an independent event. The granting or denying of a motion to suppress is unrelated to rulings in prior suppression hearings. The mathematical equivalent is a coin toss. Odds of rightly calling head or tail are independent of the outcomes in prior coin tosses. Four ways to preclude the police practice of “stops,” and the police practice of “stops” and frisks, are suggested: 1. Proper judicial reading of the Fourth Amendment. 2. Separation of the charging function from the prosecuting function. 3. Refusals by grand juries to indict. 4. Refusals by petit juries to convict.