This is a very specific question.  I am looking for information
pertaining to what was essentially a "Terry frisk" at common law,
either in England, or in colonial United States.  What I am
specifically looking for is, has there ever been a requirement that
the police, upon stopping someone (not arresting, but merely stopping
so as to conduct a limited, brief inquiry into suspected criminal
activity), have to tell the suspect words to the effect of, "You are
not being arrested, but you are not free to leave either."

The issue is that in the U.S. currently, the police do not have to say
this.  Therefore, when an officer starts asking a suspect questions,
the suspect doesn't know whehter he is engaging in a "consensual
encounter" or whether he is being "Terry stopped."  I'm trying to
figure out whether there is any historical basis for requiring the cop
to tell the suspect what's up.

If you can just point me to the stuff, that's all I'm looking for. 
The bid price is low because I don't need you to write me a treatise
on the subject...just point me in the right direction if you can find
any data.  (and of course, tell me what search you used!)

thanks.

It's not found in CL, its a US supreme court case Terry vs. Ohio look
up the case on the web

That's not my question, I am completely familiar with the case, I am
inquiring as to whether the equivalent of a Terry stop at c/l included
a verbal warning as i described above

Your question is a good question and is probably argued in the courts
more than any other law. The Supreme Court has made several, several,
several rulings regarding custody, detention, interrogation, etc...

Your question is very complex and has numerous factors involved. A yes
or no answer can not be given with out first written a 10,000 page
essay. However I believe what you are asking is at what time does the
"consensual encounter" question and answers becomes a full blown
interview that is admissible in a court of law. I think you would be
more suited with looking at is the Miranda Rights.

The Supreme Court has ruled on terry stop, integration, field
interviews, phone interviews, custodial interviews, non custodial
interviews, traffic stops, utterances, etc.. and they all go back to
the Miranda Warning. When should it apply and at what time should it
apply, does the person feel he can leave when being asked questions or
is he lawfully detained or under arrest.

Now with Miranda in mind ill try and answer the rest of the question.
Does the officer have to tell you that you are under arrest? Yes if
you are arrested he is obligated to tell you that you are and what
for.

Does the officer have to tell you that you are being detained? Yes
Such as a traffic stop or a Terry Stop.

Does the officer have to tell you ?what?s up?? NO he is only obligated
to tell you that you are being detained for speeding, a possible
burglary, a robbery suspect etc. He does not have to tell you the
particulars of the investigation. If you are arrested for the crime
your attorney will file a motion of discovery to get the report.

The link below has some good information. I would also recommend that
you do a google search for Detention and Custody and find the
definitions of each. The definition is the most important thing to
consider when questions are being asked.


http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/mirandarights/a/mirandaqa.htm

if you have already read the case, then the comments or other cases
cited by the justices will give a clue toward its base, but as I said
before their is no c/l on this type of subject, c/l can be found in
contract/property law even this is being replaced by more and more
state statutes addressing modern problems with c/l relating to these
matters. In the case of a crminal code and a terry stop is so far
remove from old english common law where the c/l comes from I would
highly doubt any relationship between todays criminal law, development
of the usa consitution, and a terry stop, more likely within the
justices opinions in terry v. ohio you will find the substance, but to
ask if terry case from 1968 and a crminal constitution  issue has some
relation to old english common law from 1800's is far off, in c/l days
all that matter was if you where rich or poor if rich then laws could
be bended but as to if a police officer had to give you a warning
before they did anything to you in 1800 in england please they had
absolute freedom on the beat if you where not rich, they could do
anything even keep you in jail for days on end without telling you
why.