Arguments Against Police Arrest

The stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant. This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the 1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well-known hot spots and areas with high crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities.

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

Secondly, research shown that approximately “6% percent of the stops and frisk have caused individuals being arrested and 2% in the recovery of illegal weapons (“Report of The NYPD’S”, 2013).” This statistical data demonstrates how the stop and frisk policy is ineffective at achieving the objective of removing illegal weapons off of the streets, however, it is effective at removing illegal substances off of the streets. In many of the cases, the police officer instructs the individual to remove illegal substances from their pockets and then arrested and convicted of a misdemeanor for having marijuana in plain view. This is a violation of the

The consequences presented in Terry vs. Ohio were put forth but examination of the “reasonable balancing test.” By doing so, a balancing test that has a wider variety of causes is now in effect. In this landmark case, it was held that policemen are permitted to perform a “stop and frisk” pat down, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is presently dangerous and carrying a deadly weapon. This “stop and frisk” method was later extended to vehicle arrests as well.

Stop-and-frisk, a crime prevention tactic that allows a police officer to stop a person based on "reasonable suspicion, of criminal activity and frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. In fact, Judge Scheindlin pointedly wrote in her opinion that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk.” She said they could continue if the city complied with court-ordered remedies to make sure that the stops and frisks did not violate the Constitution. Scheindlin called these “Terry stops,” referring to Terry v. Ohio, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled that a police officer can stop and frisk individuals where there is a reasonable basis for

According to the Center for Constitutional Rights report, stop and frisk is “the practice by which a police officer initiates a stop of an individual…allegedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” (2012). This practice dates back to the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968 where the police “are authorized to stop a person…without a warrant” if the law enforcement officials have a reasonable suspicion that an individual is about to commit a crime (“Terry vs. Ohio,” 1968). Mcfadden, a detective, was patrolling his downtown beat when he discovered Terry as well as his two male accomplices roaming the same area more than 24 times, while stopping to look in the same store window. Their actions stimulated suspicion and Mcfadden approached the men and identified himself as a policeman. Mcfadden frisked Terry and found a revolver in his overcoat pocket and was then charged with carrying a concealed weapon (“Terry vs. Ohio,” 1968). The Supreme Court’s decision though, rejected the argument that the stop and frisk of Terry did not trigger the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court

First let’s ask what does Stop and frisk actually mean legally? “It’s the situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.”

The Stop-Question-and-Frisk Program, more commonly known as “stop and frisk” or 250s, authorizes police to stop and question pedestrians and frisk them for weapons or other contrabands. This practice is based on the decision of the United States Supreme Court form the case of Terry v. Ohio. The holding establishes that if there is reasonable suspicion that the person may be dangerous or armed, police can stop him or her without violating the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits

Stop and frisk was created and is still enforced by Minnesota, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles metropolitan police departments. The Stop and Frisk policy gives officers the jurisdiction to stop and search any individual that may infer any suspicious characteristics. Each person can be questioned via the suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon, regards of their whereabouts, searched for illicit drugs, and other contraband that may harm community members. Moreover, "the officers must point out and specifically articulate what led them to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot" (Richardson 2011). Any citizen can be stopped for whatever reason an officer believes is “reasonably suspicious". What is reasonably suspicious is also determined by the court of law when a suspect is reprimanded and turned into their respective justice department. This policy was meant to enforce weapon and drug possession laws in the event that criminal activity is to be suspected. Contemporary statistics show that the stop and frisk policy is ineffective, targeting mostly people of color (POC).

With that right comes open carry, and the legality of it. According to the former President of the NRA, open carry is legal in 45 U.S. states (Joshua Gillen). Open carry should be permitted in every state, it is part of the Constitution. Innocent citizens are being stopped by the Police for simply exercising their right to open carry. Often times citizens are stopped at gunpoint and treated as if they were a criminal. If we do not continue to exercise this right, harassment will only persist. There are multiple videos on YouTube showing the Police harassing open carry activists and even disarming them. If you plan to open carry to exercise your right, know that it is your right, and the police have no right to stop you for exercising

Stop and frisk has two components that define the stop element as well as the frisk element. The stop element is defined as when a law enforcement officer briefly detains an individual, and the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur, and ask questions of the individual regarding a preliminary investigation and excludes the requirement of probable cause (Bethel, 2015). Furthermore, the frisk element may be conducted if the officer has reasonable suspicion the individual has a weapon, and is performed as a limited pat-down search of the outer clothing on the individual detained by the officer (Bethel, 2015). If a weapon is discovered, the officer is authorized to conduct a more in-depth investigation.

Law enforcement has been helpful to the world in the past, though there have been cases where the police used too much of their power. Police brutality is known by the excessive force used on individuals that is unnecessary as law enforcement. Police brutality is prevalent a lot more than it has been in the previous years. In the past police used excessive force when it was necessary, but now in the society we live in police are overstepping boundaries. The police these days act as if they are above the law, and they have the ability to do whatever they desire Police brutality should be monitored so that civilians are protected, and so the police responsible for the wrong doings are punished for their crimes.

According to a Violence Policy Center analysis of news reports, concealed carry permit holders have killed at least 11 law enforcement officers and 319 private citizens since May 2007, 19 of these were mass shootings, and 27 murder-suicides. I personally believe that individuals in America without a criminal record should not be able to carry a concealed weapon in public settings. Carrying a concealed weapon in public settings is automatically imposing a threat on those around you. It increases the chances of an altercation escalating and turning lethal and is portrayed as “self-defense”. Giving individuals the right to carry a concealed weapon in public settings makes the ones without a weapon feel less safe, or intimidated at all

Wilson states in his article that police officers have the right to conduct a frisk search if they have “reasonable suspicion.” Wilson gives the example of a motorist being stopped for traffic violation and having a suspicious bulge in his pocket which could lead to an officer conducting a search. Another example could be someone hanging out with their gang friends. In this case, the reasonable suspicion is not the bulge but the people the person is hanging out with and the area. In 1992 the police arrested about 240,000 people for illegally carrying a weapon. However, this is about one-fourth of people who were arrested for drunken behavior. Wilson suggests that we urge our police officers to conduct frisks to help reduce the number of illegal guns on the street and by doing so find a way to reward the officers. I agree that this method of reducing guns will work. However, this will method will only work to a certain point because there are some people with gun permits which can make it hard to get guns off the

If you have ever been in a life threatening situation with no way to defend yourself, being denied access to a firearm makes the situation worse.  Many law abiding citizens that feel threatened are not able to obtain a firearm for protection.  Innocent people are dying while criminals are getting away with gun related crimes.  There can be many regulations and laws against guns, but if a person wants a gun they will find a way to get one.  The thought of criminals having guns in their possession is a scary thought, but would you want to be the one who is unarmed?  Research shows there is no direct correlation between gun control and lower crime rates; therefore, denying law abiding citizens access to weapons for protection is unfair