Week Two Discussion

.docx

School

College of Southern Nevada *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

107

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ElderBraveryMole46

In the case of Whren v. United States , the Supreme Court believed that Fourth Amendment analysis was highly objective that even a legitimate search or arrest would not be annulled even if an officer’s decision to act was based on race. Even though the court had held to the view that the Fourth Amendment is applied objectively, the fuss over Whren’s practical legitimation of racial profiling had only grown over time. Many argue that Whren’s case was wrongly decided. The court never explained why they created a rule making motivation absolutely irrelevant when there was a readily available alternative, especially applying the standard applicable to review of prosecutorial discretion. Prosecution decisions are indisputable, unless they are based on unconstitutional precaution. The court did not have to approve racial profiling to preserve the broad scope of legitimate law enforcement discretion. Secondly, since the case of Whren, the court has elaborated the reasons for an objective approach. These are holding officers to extremely high standards and promoting honest law enforcement. The court’s aims would be promoted by prohibiting race-based searches whereas they are undermined by allowing them. In the case of Terry v. Ohio , Terry believed that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment. This means that the stop-and-frisk cannot be unreasonable. According to the court a reasonable stop-and-frisk is one “in which a reasonable prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of other is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him/her to be armed and dangerous.” The stop-and-frisk falls under criminal law rather than civil law. Two remedies for racial profiling could be to review a person's record and to prevent bias or improper enforcement and offer human diversity and sensitivity training to officers. Starting to offer some basic training and reinforcement to officers would save a lot of time on the field and courts for improper profiling. In the case of Suda v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection , two American citizens were detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for speaking Spanish while shopping at a local convenience store in Havre, Montana. The lawsuit that was filed in Great Falls, Montana cites violations of the Fourth Amendment. There was no legitimate reason to arrest the women. The agent that seized the two women singled them out solely based on race, relying on their use of Spanish as justification for their race. Racially profiling these two women is extremely unfair. If this was the case for everyone, 20.4% of the population of Nevada would be detained. Solely relying on someone's language choice does not justify the use of racial profiling to detain them and possibly give them trauma. Retrieved on December 10, 2023 from: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/state-profiles/state/language/NV Retrieved on December 10, 2023 from: https://www.aclu.org/cases/suda-v-us-customs-and- border-protection#legal-documents

Retrieved on December 10, 2023 from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stop_and_frisk#:~:text=The%20frisk%20is%20also %20called,and%2Dfrisk%20cannot%20be%20unreasonable.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help