Spanish Stop And Frisk Research Paper

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

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 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.

When Americans think of racism, they usually think of slavery, and that racism is no longer a problem in America. However, this is not the case. Racism is still obvious in America. Racism can be linked directly to stereotypical mindsets of certain groups of people.  Today’s racism is not restricted to whites and blacks, and it has come to define many different groups and races. Pigmentation as well as physical characteristics and features still are influential for classifying people. It is easy to overlook the racism that hides below the surface and is part of American life. Today, an estimate 54 million Latinos live in the U.S. and around 43 million people speak Spanish. Although Latinos are the country’s largest minority, anti-Latino prejudice is still common. Very few Americans recognize, acknowledge, and respect the contributions of one of America’s greatest ethnic groups – Hispanics. Americans are often confused as to who Hispanics really are and what they represent in America. Although the United States is known for having a melting pot of diverse cultures, recent studies have shown the rise of discrimination against Latinos and Hispanics immigrants. A person’s legal status should not be an excuse for mistreatment.

The famous and controversial police practice known as the stop and frisk started on the last sixties. It was known national wide when the case Terry v. Ohio was presented this case was argued on December 12, 1967 it all started when Cleveland detective McFadden was on patrol on a foot post where he noticed the petitioner John W. Terry and another men known as Chilton were acting suspiciously on a street corner the detective noticed both men looking into a store multiple times with an interest to do something, then another men known as Katz showed up to the scene all three men joined and where walking around the store, that's when detective McFadden approached and identified himself as a police officer he started to ask them simple

Eighty-seven percent of stops in 2012, were Black and Hispanic people. Compare that percentage to the amount of water on Earth, only seventy percent. Now, imagine eighty-seven percent water covering the Earth. That would make the world unbalanced and difficult to live in, which is how life is for the minorities impacted by Stop and Frisk. One of the most debated and controversial topics in New York City is the Stop and Frisk policy, and the impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts).

Imagine innocently walking down the street in a city you’ve lived in your whole life, when all of a sudden you hear the dreaded “woop woop” and see those flashing red and blue lights. The police. They interrogate you, ask your whereabouts, and finally, they “frisk” you. Of course, they find nothing; they rarely do when they search people. Although it’s wrong and demoralizing, you know it’s something you’ll have to get used to as an African American living in New York City.

A diverse minority group of Latino and Spanish-speaking peoples has played an important part of what it means to be American and what it means to be a citizen in the United States today. Moving into the future, in order to analyze the trajectory that this group is in, we must first understand the group’s history in the United States and in territories that would become the United States. In addition, we must look at the origins of the most recent wave of Latino immigration in order to understand their current effect on American society and the intersection between both minority and majority groups. Finally, we get to the apex of this investigation: what lies in the future for Latino Americans in the United States? Although Latino

The NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices raise serious concerns over racial profiling, illegal stops and privacy rights. The Department’s own reports on its stop and frisk activity confirm what many people in communities of color across the city have long known: The police are stopping hundreds of thousands of law abiding New Yorkers every year, and the vast majority are black and Latino. In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 685,724 times. 605,328 were totally innocent (88 percent). 350,743 were black (53 percent). 223,740

Research shows that African Americans and Latinos have been the victims of racial profiling by the criminal justice system. African Americans and Latinos are at a higher risk of being arrested, prosecuted and sentenced that Whites. The main cause of racial disparities occurs because law enforcement agencies believe that African Americans and Latinos are at high risk of engaging in crime and violence. During prosecutions and court hearings, the jury and judges give harsher sentences to minority groups. As a result, minorities view the criminal justice system as unjust since it favors whites. This research paper reviews relevant literature to show white privileges and racial disparities in the criminal justice system. Additionally, the paper provides linkages between racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system and the law. In this regard, the main objective of the research paper is to give detailed insights on racial discriminations in the criminal justice system.

The terms “stop-and-frisk” is used as one, then the reality is that its two separate acts. Stops are the first act with frisks being the second that requires the police officer to have two different legal justifications. When a police officer stops a subject that officer must have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is in the act to commit a crime. To frisk a person by a police officer that officer must have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person who is stopped poses a threat to the officer’s safety which may include a concealed weapon ("Report on the NYPD 's stop and frisk policy," 2013).

Within the article, Police Stop and Frisk-Encounters Plunged in Second Quarter of 2013, Joseph Goldstein indicates how random stop searches by police officials have declined severely over the last few years. The purpose of stop and frisks are to determine if suspicious individuals are carrying any weapons, drugs or any other illegal objects. This topic is a very sensitive subject due to the nature of discrimination that many police offers are found to be in trouble with. Numerous individuals are against stop and frisks because they feel that this is a way that allows racists police officers to employ their racial ideologies towards the community, and enforce discrimination amongst minorities.

“ Later known as the “stop and frisk” case, Terry v. Ohio represents a clash between Fourth Amendment protection from intrusive, harassing conduct by police when no crime has been committed, and the duty of an officer to investigate suspicious behavior and prevent crime.”(Police Practices on the Docket) The fourth amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. So we look at this case with unreasonable search and seizures. When you look at this case both guy were searched without a warrant. So you may say that the officer had no reason to search the guys. Well in the case the officer was watching both guys walk back and forth in front of the store about 24 times. Then the officer said they looked like they were up to no good. Then once the officer finally seen them a couple of blocks down talking. He then went over and asked what they were doing. He then had the right to pat the guys down for his own safety and for probable cause. He was watching them for a long time. That gave him all the right to pat them down. Once patting them down, he came across the weapons then booked them. If you think about it and if the officer did not do anything what could have happened? Those guys could have robbed that store and maybe even killed someone knowing they had a

The controversy of the stop-and-frisk centers around the Fourth Amendment 's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. As mentioned above, the stop-and-frisk is not an unreasonable search; in fact, it is not a search at all. It is an anti-crime measure that police utilize as a proactive method of policing, with the objective of deterring criminals from “toting” illegal weapons on the streets. This preventive approach to crime fighting allows law enforcement to question suspicious individuals, while offering protection for the officer.