Stop Frisk Arrest

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

Cases R v Park (1994) where procedures laid down in the PACE Act were not followed properly and evidence could not be submitted. Also R v Fenlley [1989] in which the defendant had not been informed properly of the reason for stop and search can lead to suspects being unable to be prosecuted. It is hard to justify these results and describe the use of stop and searches as a valuable tool in the detection of crime. Especially when there is a large amount of evidence from reports, cases and statistical information showing the disproportionate amount of Black and Asian individuals that are stopped and searched under section 1 of PACE 1984. This has led to issues arising between the police and the community.

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

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

In the 1990s, the growth of violent crime reached its all-time high. In reply to the number of high murder rates in 1990, the New York City Police Department realized that whatever they are doing to reduce violent was not working. The local news reported that New Yorkers were afraid to wear their jewelry in public. Some New Yorkers reported that they sprint to the subway exit to avoid victimization when the door opened. The New York City Police Department decided to implement a practice of Stop, Question, and Frisk. This law became to know as the Stop -and- Frisk (Bellin, 2014). Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). By the last 1990, Stop-and Frisk became a common practice implemented by New York City Police Department (Bellin, 2014).

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

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.

IV. Issue: Can a police officer that orders a driver out of a car frisk the person if reasonable suspicion exists that he may be armed?

The Merit case of Fernandez v. California is seeking to determine whether the Constitutional rights of Walter Fernandez were violated under the 4th Amendment when law enforcement conducted a search of his residence upon obtaining consent from his girlfriend, who was also a resident, after Fernandez was taken into custody (and had stated his objections to the search while at the scene). In Georgia v. Randolph (2006), in a 5 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court held that when two co-occupants are present and one consents to a search while the other refuses, the search is not constitutional. This paper will provide a statement of the decision, based on current

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the pros and cons of the Stop and Frisk policy in New York. This paper covers a short history of Stop and Frisk. It also will address the progression of the policy throughout the years. Furthermore, it will relate the topic to the management, gender, and race class focusing in on how the unconscious bias plays a role in how the police choose who to stop. The paper also includes some statistics of Stop and Frisk encounters. It will conclude with the group opinion of the Stop and Frisk policy.

The stop, question, and frisk policy was implemented in the NYPD in an effort to make the city a safer place. With weapons becoming more easily accessible than ever, they are becoming more of a problem, and officers and the general public are now in more danger than ever of being killed by a firearm, knife, or a weapon. Although the policy is intended to prevent harm and protect society, it has been under major scrutiny in not only the past few years, but also the past few decades as well. Due to the fact that minorities are believed to be the main target of this policing tactic, many people have argued it is inherently corrupt should be abolished. On the other hand, it has shown to provide some positive outcomes and as a result, it is a necessary

We must start in the research of the NYPD Frisk Program: Noble Cause Corruption situation with the Fourth Amendment‘s which protects a person against unreasonable searches and seizures of the U.S. Constitutional 4th Amendment. Further review of the 4th Amendment law provides guidelines for the search and seizure between police and citizens in a public place.