Law enforcement officers are given much power and authority over one’s civil liberties. Not only do they have a duty but also a responsibility to enforce laws and ordinances in their jurisdiction, maintain order and protect its people. In some cases, the only way to accomplish this is through legitimized use of force. Use of force can best be described as "the amount of effort required by a law enforcement officer to induce compliance of an unwilling subject" (nij.gov, 2012). With that said, law enforcement officers have been given the right to apply only enough force necessary to control a situation, while defending others, preventing escape, during self-defense and while a subject is resisting arrest (Pollock, pp. 234). It is not until that force becomes excessive that it becomes say an issue.
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
There are precise rules that involve the stopping of an individual by the authority. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”. Specific distinctions within the Amendment are made in the prior case of Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1 ). These distinctions discuss the rules and regulations adherent to stops of individuals by the authority. According to Justice Warren, delivering the opinion of the court in this case, “the police should be allowed to ‘stop’ a person and detaining him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that the individual may be connected with criminal activity”. This statement basically explains that unusual conduct of an individual observed by the authorities can give reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. This reasonable suspicion is grounds for a stop and brief questioning by the authorities.
It's interesting that the Supreme Court decided in Whren vs. U.S. that any offense was a legitimate legal basis for a stop, regardless of the officer's subjective state of mind. Ultimately, this decision is an easy out and can be used to stop and search any vehicle an officer wants which goes against what the Fourth Amendment stands for (Siegel). Our country has developed a system based on fair and equal treatment of all people and not unfair treatment based on one’s race or color. In another case of Ohio v. Robinette, the Court rejected the argument that officers seeking consent to search a vehicle must tell the driver he is free to refuse permission and leave (Find Law).
My support: In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, the court determined that officers can order any occupant out of the vehicle during any traffic stop ... so long as the officer has reasonable cause to feel that his or her safety could be at risk. (e.g. officer thinks there's a gun in the car). The courts' decision here is a direct result of concern for the safety of law enforcers.
The law of the land, stop and frisk law is now questionable. It is some cases where the law is acceptable but also considered excessive. Officers are seen taking the stop and frisk law to far. They are just routinely stopping and frisking individuals with no belief that a crime is being committed. Stop and frisk is seen as racial profiling. “Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump brought stop and frisk policies back into the spotlight at Monday night's debate, calling for a national stop and frisk policy to help curb gun violence in cities.”
The stop by Officer Simson was not justified because he had no reasonable suspicion to pull over the defendant. Reasonable suspicion, if received from an anonymous caller or informant, must be corroborated with an investigation or independent observation by the police officer. State v Montel. Here, Officer Simson, after receiving a call from an anonymous source, went directly to the convenience store to look for the defendant. Upon not finding him there, he drove around until he spotted the Red Jeep Cherokee, which the tipster identified the potential defendant driving and at that point pulled him over. In State v. Sneed, the police stopped a defendant who made a stop at a house
Citizens of the United States, we are guaranteed certain rights by the Constitution. Police officers haven’t always acted in accordance with the constitutional rights of citizens when it comes to gathering evidence of a crime. As a result, the United States Supreme Court has had to limit the incentive for government officials to violate these rights.
The principle of stop and frisk being the first initial position gives police officers constitutional power to intervene with a person’s freedom. The purpose of a stop and frisk is to balance individual rights and the government’s obligation to carry out the duty to protect the society from individuals who violates the laws. “A stop is a brief detention of a person based on specific and articulable facts for the purpose of investigation suspicious activity, and a frisk is a limited pat-down search for weapons for the protection of the government agent and others. It is not automatically permitted with a stop, but only when the agent suspects the person Is armed and dangerous” (Harr, J.S; Hess, K.M; Orthmann, C.H; Kingsbury, J,
We have all heard the excuses before, "It's uncomfortable, I'm only going around the corner", I'd rather be thrown out of a car than be stuck in a seatbelt," and my favorite, "I'm a good driver I don't need to wear one." Well you may be a good driver but there are situations beyond your control such as bad weather, road conditions and not to mention other drivers that can affect your safety. Seat belts can mean the difference between life and death in an auto accident. Wearing a seat belt every time you enter a vehicle is not only the smart thing to do it is the right thing because it saves lives, it's the law and it will save you money.
Crime is rampant--in all races. Police are here to help... but if you are told to stop, and you do not stop, they must take the necessary precautions because obviously you are doing something you should not be doing. I've been pulled over numerous times and never given a police man/woman any trouble. I respect them; therefore, they respect me.
Subsequently, the officer performing the traffic stop has to ensure that it is done in a timely manner and that the citizen being detained is not being held unlawfully. This prevents the citizens Fourth Amendment rights from being infringed upon and it also prevents an officer from abusing his power. If the officer cannot literate why he held the individual past the means of the initial stop to a degree that would satisfy the probable cause definition and the time frame cannot justify that the stop was not unreasonably prolonged, then the officer was outside of his power to detain the
An enormous division currently exists between the people who believe that automobile safety should be an option and those that feel it must be a requirement. The federal government feels the morally obligated to create the safest driving environment possible. On the other end of the spectrum, opinions exist that the average driver has ability to make the choice of safety on their own. Editorials, political assemblies, debates, and conversations have arrived on the concept of click it or ticket. This idea refers to ticketing any motor vehicle driver and passenger that is not fastened by a seat belt. Arguments have been made for both sides, and have been reviewed in multiple states.
Unfair arrest is a common complaint of citizens; however, if Law enforcement has a warrant or probable cause for arrest, arrest is allowed. In order for a lawful arrest to be made a warrant is preferred but not required, for certain cases of urgent need a warrant is obviously not necessary. For example, if a crime of violence is committed in the presence of a police officer, no warrant would be needed. A suspect arrested without a warrant must be given probable cause for their arrest within 48 hours of the arrest, still probable cause does not make the arrest final. Lately in society unfair arrest has been a common problem that has caused lots of arguments and rioting. In Ferguson Missouri, the United States witnessed a massive uproar in unfair
On the contrary, sometimes the government does get a little too involved. One can discuss seat belt laws and even wearing a helmet when on any bike. Many states enforce cyclists to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. One can argue that wearing or not wearing a helmet does not affect any other individual, but themselves. States use this as an easy revenue for a state or town, to get money from individuals. The fact is states force the wearing of a helmet on a motorcycle as well. If an individual is going above 40 MPH, they have a 50 percent chance of surviving a motorcycle accident with a helmet, and the surviving rate decline with ever 10 percent when going higher in speed. States say they have individuals’ welfare in mind, be really this