Racial Profiling by Police Essays

929 Words 4 Pages
The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their persons, ‘ houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures… (108). Under the Fourth Amendment the legal constraints placed on police and the rules they must follow for “Stop and Frisk” happened as a result of the “Terry v. Ohio “case (162). The constraints are that the police cannot stopped and frisk people without reasonable suspicion probable cause or a warrant. Before 1968 the police could search a suspect only if they had probable cause. After the Terry case the police may conduct a frisk search of a suspect’s outer clothing only if there was reasonable suspicion. The U.S. Supreme Court definition of “Frisk” is: a patting down of the …show more content…
In court the suspect argued that the officer had no probable cause to search him thus the search was illegal and the gun should not be admitted as evidence.
Although the court agreed that the officer did not have probable cause, the gun possession was upheld because the court found that the experienced officer observation was reasonable to fear that the suspects were armed. The court found that the frisk was reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment.

The exclusionary rule holds that illegally seized evidence must be excluded from trials.
Searches conducted without probable cause (or without a warrant where one is required) are illegal (165). In the case of “Mapp v Ohio” (Albanese164), three officers illegally search
Mapp’s home and arrested her for obscene materials. She was found guilty and the Supreme
Court overturns the conviction because her fourth amendment right was violated when the officers entered her home without a warrant. The court cited that the search was without probable cause or a warrant when one was needed. Because they had no warrant the items found was seized illegally and the exclusionary rule applied. As such the items seized may not be presented as evidence against Mapp. Mapp’s conviction was overturned on the ground that searching her residence violated her Fourth Amendment Right. The officers entered her home without probable cause and without a warrant therefore all items seized was illegal.

In 2000 the case of
Open Document