Reasonable Suspicion

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

1. Identify and describe the three possible alternatives for applying the Fourth Amendment to “stop and frisk” situations. Also, identify which alternative the U.S. Supreme Court adopted and explain why.

The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity

Reasonable doubt is something that is derived from probable suspicion of a person or an event in different cases. People are forced to act in a certain way and their actions are justified if they have reasonable suspicion. It is really important that for reasonable suspicion that the person you are doubtful of shows some sort of suspicious behavior or attitude that justifies the doubt. A person who is doing something based on reasonable suspicion need to have some gathered facts that support his suspicion; otherwise it won’t really be something that can be qualified as reasonable suspicion.

follow for “Stop and Frisk” happened as a result of the “Terry v. Ohio “case (162). The

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

The constitutional requirements of stop and frisk practices were bought up by the Supreme Court during the court case of Terry v. Ohio. Before this case, it was illegal for Police Officers to stop someone and frisk them unless they were being arrested or have a search warrant for that person. After various cases that tested the constitutional rights of Americans such as Sibron v. New York, Peters v. New York and Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court cane to the conclusion that police officers can frisk someone without having

The 4th amendment, search and seizure causes a lot of problems. Search and Seizure is the rights that police have when they enter in a home. The standard for conducting a warrantless search, probable cause, is the same standard necessary for a warrant to issue. An illegal search or illegal seizure is a violation of your Fourth Amendment rights, and any evidence seized must be excluded from trial. Normally police need a search warrant to enter into a home unless they get the consent to enter in the home without one they normally don't go go into a home without anything. A terry pat is when a police officer can detain or conduct a reasonable search for weapons where the officer has the reason to believe the person is armed. Auto stops is

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a ‘‘seizure’’ of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 536. Seizures based on mistakes of fact may be reasonable. Id. at 532. All parties agree that to justify this type of seizure, officers need only ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’—that is, ‘‘a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped’’ of breaking the law. To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them “fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.” Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. Id. at 536. Courts do not examine the subjective understanding of the particular officer involved. The Fourth Amendment tolerates mistakes and preserves probable cause if "those mistakes—whether of fact or of law—[are] objectively reasonable." Id.

Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable likelihood that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. It is a reasonable belief based on facts or circumstances and is informed by a police officer’s training and experience. Reasonable suspicion is seen as more than a guess or hunch but is less than probable cause. Probable cause is the logical belief, supported by facts and circumstances, which a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. The difference between the two are the fact that probable cause has evidence or is fact based whereas reasonable suspicion is a hunch.

Reasonable suspicion occurs when an equitable law enforcement officer possessing a belief or intuition of the possibility of a crime being committed, stops an alleged suspect, conducts a brief investigation and “pats” them down if it is believed the detainee possess a weapon. Reasonable suspicion became relevant in 1968, during the paramount case of Terry v. Ohio. An officer observed several people, Terry included, behaving in a suspicious manner in front of a store giving the officer reasonable suspicion to confront the suspects and conduct a brief pat down, whereas it was found that Terry had in his possession a firearm. This made the officer’s reasonable suspicion plausible, ruled by the Supreme Court, (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Thus, this lead reasonable suspicion to probable cause to the arrest of Terry and his fellow accomplices.

When this balancing test is applied to stops to investigate past crimes, probable cause to arrest need not always be required. The main focus was to determine the value of the stop. The determination of the reasonableness of stops and frisks involves balancing a person’s right to privacy and right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures against the governmental interests of effective crime prevention and detection and the safety of law enforcement officers and others from armed and dangerous persons. Hensley, 469 U.S. 675 (1985).