Final answer:
The masked man who demanded money from Patrick using the implication of having a weapon could be charged with robbery, despite no weapon being found on him, as the law emphasizes the use of intimidation over the actual possession of a weapon.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the described scenario, the masked man who made a motion that he has a weapon and demanded money from Patrick could be charged with robbery. The key element in this situation is that he used intimidation to make the victim believe that he was in imminent danger, which compelled Patrick to surrender his wallet. Although no weapon was found on him later, the mere suggestion or implication that he had one is sufficient for a charge of robbery. This is because the victim believed there was a threat to their safety, which fulfills the criteria of force or intimidation necessary for a robbery charge. The law does not always require the actual presence of a weapon; the use of fear and the pretense of being armed are enough to constitute the crime.
Related legal principles include Terry v. Ohio, which outlines when a police officer may stop and frisk a suspect, but in this case, the suspect's actions towards Patrick primarily establish the basis for the robbery charge. It is important to have a fair legal process, as exemplified in the scenario where individuals without adequate legal representation may end up in prison for extended periods before their trial, emphasizing the need for legal assistance and bail considerations.