First, one factor that the court should consider when considering the government's public safety interest is "crime prevention and detection." United States v. Hensley, 469 US 221, 228 (1985). Crime prevention and detection is directly linked to public safety because when a crime is detected, it can be prevented by apprehending criminals and getting dangerous criminals off the streets. The interest in capturing criminals is “particularly strong when the criminal activity involves a threat to public safety.” .” United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135, 1142 (10th Cir. 2007). When considering the nature of the offense, the court must also examine the crime and pay “particular attention to the potential for continued or repeated danger.” . . . and any risk of escalation. Identifier. at 1141. As a result, the public is safer and less likely to be a victim of crime with less dangerous criminals on the streets. Because the apprehension of criminals is involved in the prevention and detection of crime, another reason why the courts have authorized the execution of a Terry Stop is to prevent suspects from fleeing and no longer never find them or remain at large while posing a threat to the public. The Supreme Court held that where "the police have been unable to locate a person suspected of involvement in a past crime, the opportunity to briefly arrest that person, ask him questions or verify his identity in the absence of probable cause reinforces the government's strong interest in resolving the problem. crimes and bring offenders to justice. Identifier. at 229. Second, another factor the court should consider when considering the government's public safety interest is the "nature" of the offense. United States v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir. 2007). Public security is linked to the nature of the offer...... middle of paper ......ed. (R. at 10:6 p.m.) Furthermore, the accused was not arrested until the afternoon of April 2, which is at least a day and a half since the possible computer intrusion occurred. (R. at 11:7.) Furthermore, in this case, the crime of computer intrusion does not threaten anyone's safety, and if the information has already been obtained, it is unlikely that the suspect will reoffend or that the the offense is committed. There were also less invasive alternatives that would have better served Dansby's personal interests, as was the case in the Grigg case, such as checking the license plate and contacting the person registered to the vehicle. See Grigg, 498 F.3d at 1076. Therefore, defendant's initial ruling violated the Fourth Amendment because the ruling would not have sufficiently advanced the government's interests to justify the violation of defendant's personal liberty..