Discussion Question 9-1: Review note 4 (page 342) following the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio. Which arguments -- those of Amar or those of Sundby -- do you agree with and why? Assuming that probable cause and the requirements of exigent circumstances obviated the need for McFadden to get a warrant (feel free to challenge that assumption if you wish), was the concept of "reasonable suspicion" needed and worth the uncertainty in the law it seems to have generated?