Terry Balsamo

Stop and frisk. One of the most controversial issues of today's society. This dates back all the way to 1967 with the case Terry v Ohio. In this case, an officer by the name of Martin Mcfadden, patrolling his surrounding area, noticed two African American men acting “suspiciously” in front of a store on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue. Mcfadden described the men to be alternately walking back and forth and conversing while taking breaks in between. He also stated that the two men later met

Legal or Illegal Actions? In the first scenario, a police officer received information from an informant that a suspect in a high crime area was illegally carrying a firearm. The officer stopped a suspect and preformed a frisk finding the weapon. As the officer handcuffed the suspect, he fled into a residence where there were drugs on the table. Ultimately, the officer arrested the male and he was charged for the weapon and drugs. The first action the officer had to take was determine if there was

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).

Patrol officers spend numerous hours a day patrolling the streets; many of these hours are used executing the Stop and Frisk Policy. The Stop and Frisk Policy has caused a lot of controversy nationwide. Recently there have been many cases where the Stop and Frisk Policy has resulted in the death of an unarmed individual, typically an African American male. On July 17, 2014, Eric Gardner died while being arrested for selling individual cigarettes. The police used the Stop and Frisk Policy because

Stop and frisk was created and is still enforced by Minnesota, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Los Angeles metropolitan police departments. The Stop and Frisk policy gives officers the jurisdiction to stop and search any individual that may infer any suspicious characteristics. Each person can be questioned via the suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon, regards of their whereabouts, searched for illicit drugs, and other contraband that may harm community members. Moreover, "the officers

Racial profiling is a discriminatory practice where individuals are being targeted by law enforcement based on their race or ethnic background instead of crime suspicion. Racial profiling dates back to the 1700s -- the slavery era. African Americans who were free had to prove it with documents and papers called “freedom papers”; whether they were free did not matter, as they were continually subject to racial profiling. Specifically in South Carolina, there were slave patrols who hunted for slaves

Racial profiling is a discriminatory practice where individuals are being targeted by law enforcement based on their race or ethnic background instead of crime suspicion. Racial profiling dates back to the 1700s -- the slavery era. African Americans who were free had to prove it with documents and papers called “freedom papers”; whether they were free did not matter, as they were continually subject to racial profiling. Specifically, in South Carolina, there were slave patrols who hunted for slaves

Scenario 1: Yes, this indeed was a legal stop. This was a legal stop because under the stop and frisk exception police can stop a person on the streets and pat them down for illegal objects, so long as they have suspicion. And, during my midnight shift patrol I found it to be suspicious that these two men were behind a closed business. A business in which has been burglarized in the past. I do believe that stop and pat down was justified. I believe the stop was justified because the suspect did not

Search and Seizure The purpose for the Fourth Amendment is to protect people from intrusion of the government in areas where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. It prohibits searches and seizures unless they are conducted with probable cause and under reasonable circumstances. “The Fourth Amendment only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government or pursuant to governmental direction. Surveillance and investigatory actions taken by strictly private persons, such

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