The research paper will address the procedural process of a legal stop and frisk and illegality of the practice. In addition, it will also include other related issues brought about by stop and frisk, including the right to stop and frisk, reactions from the community, cases and other issues of interests, as well as a position on stop and frisk. It will also incorporate Saint Leo Core Value of Integrity.
One of the chief legal systems for effecting order maintenance policing among the public is to use stop and frisk. The stop-and-frisk practice is a non-consensual interaction between a police officer and an individual that borders a total arrest (Keenan & Thomas, 2014). Stop and frisk practices, also known as ‘Terry stop’ procedures are faultlessly tolerable because of the action of the Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio. Terry stop therefore has a constitutional legitimacy. A police officer requires only a judicious ground for believing that a criminal activity has been committed, may be in the process of taking place, or is about to be committed. Further, an officer can only perform a limited frisk aspect if they suspect that an individual is armed and dangerous. In this case, the role of frisk is to guarantee the safety of an officer before they can start interrogating a person or a suspect.
Rational and Justification
Stop and frisk emanated from the action of the Supreme Court to support police officers as they interact with members of the community when executing order-maintenance policing activities. It was generally intended to ensure that officers could stop an individual based on reasonable grounds. Over time, however, community members have largely expressed their dissatisfaction with stop and frisk activities. It is has been observed that police officers have expanded, influenced, and applied the Terry standard to justify some policing actions that are clearly out of the contexts of the doctrine as it was originally intended. As such, many have argued that police officers, who execute the law, have failed to uphold the provisions of the Fourth Amendment, and citizens have gradually lost their judicial protection. The doctrine of reasonable suspicion is not based on practices observed in police-citizen interactions, but rather the judiciary, which has not been keen to protect citizens and police officers who are not accountable, have largely shaped problems noted with reasonable suspicion in stop and frisk and pat-down requirements.
Legal Terms for Stop and Frisk
Stop and frisk and pat-down may be referred to as ‘investigatory detention’. Two parts are recognized in stop and frisk. While stop and frisk are two distinct practices, they are usually viewed or performed together. However, stop and frisk must meet some legal requirements to establish its legality. First, for stop, an officer must have reasonable suspicion based on certain facts that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Frisk is normally conducted when a police officer’s judicious doubt is driven by facts that a person is currently armed and dangerous and, thus, putting life in danger.
In this regard, officers may only stop an individual if they judiciously believe that a suspect is somehow linked to criminal activities. Thus, there must be sufficient facts to support a suspicion. It is, however, imperative to note that case law has demonstrated that pretext motives for conducting stop and frisk are not valid. At the same time, courts are also expected to use an objective basis when reviewing such cases.
Theoretically, the frisk is used for the purpose of searching and confirming that suspects do not have any concealed weapons on their person and, thus, they do not pose any danger. In this case, however, frisk is restricted to ‘plain feel’. That is, a police officer may only use their hands on the clothing to feel a weapon, but not enter into a pocket. Officers cannot do the following. First, a police officer may not stop and frisk to search for evidence except when a valid search warrant has been issued. Second, it is not permissible for an office to search for any evidence in closed effects, such as pockets, containers, wallets, purses or any other items carried unless such effects may be concealing a weapon. Finally, the law does not allow an officer to squeeze or manipulate such effects.
During frisk, an officer may get illegal contrabands like drugs using plain feel. Such contraband items can be used as admissible evidence in a court. For instance, an officer may discover an illegal contraband other than a gun during the search. In this case, the suspect may face charges of possessing drug. This charge however may be influenced by facts of the case. Officers are only allowed to search for concealed weapons during stop and frisk practices.
Stop and Frisk: the Issue, the Fourth Amendment and Citizen-Police Interaction
One area in specific in which courts have improperly disregarded the rule of law is in the jurisdiction of searches, seizures, and reasonable suspicion found under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Fourth Amendment, individuals have the right be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures” (Sexton, Sommerkamp, & Martin, 2014, p. 729). These individual’s rights are found under the collection of obligatory freedom and should not be violated. Therefore, such rights can only be safeguarded by ensuring that each indefensible intrusion by law enforcement officers upon the privacy of a person, whatever the means used, must be viewed as a disregard and disrespect of the Fourth Amendment. Notwithstanding its alleged honored status, provisions on the rights of individuals under the Fourth Amendment continue to suffer drawbacks at any given chances through any special situations.
At the center of the issue and challenges involved in protections noted under the Fourth Amendment are two vital communal values in opposing sides. The law enforcement officers require favorable and flexible power to fulfil their obligations and ensure their safety when engaged in criminal activity investigations. On the other hand, the declared rights of individuals that citizens should be free from subjective, illegal government intrusion into their private lives also contribute to the dilemma.
All States, including Florida and New York among others, have used Terry stop a basis for the law. Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion on Terry stop forever transformed how police officers interact with the public (Sexton, Sommerkamp, & Martin, 2014). It is imperative to appreciate that the Judge’s opinion did not provide a broad recognition of police power to stop and frisk the public as desired. Nevertheless, many critics have argued that it was the basis of disregard for the Fourth Amendment (Hutchins, 2013; Mathias, 2015). It is observed that after the Terry stop, jurisprudence on the stop-and-frisk has resulted in a sustained increment of police authority over citizens. As such, the practice has deviated from the original language of the Judge and weakened the Fourth Amendment (Sexton et al., 2014).
Before 1968, the year associated with the Terry stop, police officers involved in a search or seizure had to have probable cause to back their claims and beliefs that the suspected individual was linked to some acts of crime. Under the Fourth Amendment, it is constitutionally recognized that a legal police-citizen interaction can only take place based on voluntary individual cooperation, or when the police have probable cause to support their claims (Sexton et al., 2014).
With the introduction of Terry stop, however, a new form of police-citizen interaction emerged – Terry stop or investigative stop. Terry stop was not based on probable cause or voluntary police-citizen interaction. The Court argued that Terry stop was controlled by the Fourth Amendment’s common provision of reasonableness instead of the Warrant Clause. For police to detain an individual lawfully for a short investigative stop, they need only to have a judicious and some suspicions that a criminal activity has occurred , is taking place, or is about to take place. In addition, a police officer applying stop and frisk may also extend a pat-down to conduct a weapon search if an officer rationally believes that the suspect could be armed and currently dangerous.
As a case example, the NYDP practices involving stop and frisk present some interesting facts. In fact, the public and other concerned bodies have raised questions about privacy rights, racial profiling, and illegal stops (Mathias, 2015).
Based on data captured by the Department, one can confirm these facts (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2016). Most people in communities have confirmed their experiences with stop and frisk activities. Specifically, people of color have long experiences with stop and frisk practices. The NYDP has stopped hundreds of thousands of innocent members of the public every year. Most of these individuals stopped are mainly African Americans and Latinos (New York Civil Liberties Union, 2016). Analyses conducted by the New York Civil Liberties Union have demonstrated that many innocent individuals have been subjected to constant police stops and street interrogations. The number has exceeded 4 million since the year 2002. In addition, African Americans and Latinos have repeatedly been the targets for stop and frisk in New York. It also noted that about nine out of ten persons subjected to stop and frisk in New York have been utterly innocent based on the reports from the NYDP. In the year 2015, for instance, the police stopped some New Yorkers 22,939 times. From this figure, 18,353 (80 percent) were innocent, 12,223 (54 percent) were Black, 6,598 (29 percent) were Latino, and 2,567 (11 percent) were white.
In the State of Florida, stop and frisk activities have become scandalous. For instance, there are documented reports detailing stop and frisk activities involving thousands of children and senior citizens. For instance, the Miami Gardens police data showed that stop and frisk seized some 8,489 children and about 1,775 senior citizens aged between 70 years old to 99 years old. In fact, the report showed that a five-year-old child was reported as suspicious (Brennan & Lieberman, 2014).
In the recent past, communities have started to challenge stop and frisk policies, and in most cases, they have been successful. In the 2011, for instance, Philadelphia opted for judicial monitoring of stops instead of a lawsuit by ACLU. In the year 2012, Seattle also opted for a similar approach after the Department of Justice launched an investigation. In addition, the most significant event occurred in August 2013 in the Federal District Court when the judge allowed an opening order against NYDP’s stop and frisk practices. In a divisive ruling in the case of Floyd v. City of New York, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin established that the City of New York had been consciously apathetic to an illegal policing policy that allowed stop and frisks to be done with a minimal reasonable suspicion. In addition, the Judge also determined that the policy had been relying on racial categorization to identify whom to stop-and-frisk and pat-down.
Reasonable Suspicion
According to the US Supreme Court, reasonable suspicion reflects common sense conclusions that any person would reach by considering facts of the situation (Izzi, 2015). That is, reasonable suspicion is not an elusive hunch or thoughts. Instead, it relies on facts to support a given conclusion reached by a police officer.
When compared against probable cause, then it is noted that a reasonable suspicion is based on low standards that an officer requires to arrest a person or perform a full search. However, the outcome of an investigation of a suspect may lead to probable cause. The Court had observed that Terry conviction was necessary, but it appreciated the Fourth Amendment’s roles that a detained individual, for investigative purposes, was undeniably seized and any ensuing frisk was automatically a search. There are reasonable grounds for an investigative stop as previously mentioned while a seizure involves accosting a person and stopping them from walking away. These policing activities require specific and articulable facts noted during seizure. When all these are take into account together with rational arguments, then the action taken could be deemed appropriate by considering reasonable caution expressed by officers.
According to Saint Leo University, its core value of integrity reflects excellence. That is, members, including the faculty, staff, and student live and deliver the mission of the Institution. It requires honest, fairness and consistency in words and deeds (Saint Leo University, 2016). Based on this view, police officers should not act on a mere hunch and pure imagination. Instead, they should support their actions with verifiable facts and accurately use of evidence to support probable cause. In this case, when an officer stops a five-year-old child and a 99-year-old citizen, then their integrity is questionable.
Likewise, community members should also reflect the core value of integrity. Any individuals subjected to a stop and frisk should maintain their integrity. For instance, one should cooperate, avoid resisting the authority, or running away because an attempt to resist could lead to other charges, including obstruction of justice. Suspects should remain silent and polite, and volunteer information if necessary, but they must understand how such information will affect them.
Presently, community members must understand that stop and frisk practices are vital part of policing, and they are based on the law. However, officers must act with integrity to end a search and detention if a suspect does not violate any laws. Community members are encouraged to ask whether they are under arrest, free to leave, or if they need a lawyer.
Acceptability
Terry stop became widely acceptable after 1968. As such, police officers expanded, manipulated, and abused it without establishing reasonable suspicions. These practices could explain why Miami police have subjected children and senior citizens to stop and frisk. In fact, in the year 2009, in the case of Arizona v. Johnson, the Court consistently reiterated its support for Terry stop policing (Hutchins, 2013). In this case, an officer attached to the Arizona gang taskforce lawfully stopped a car. According to an officer’s observation, Johnson, one of the passengers, was dressed in a way that reflected gang’s dressing patterns (Hutchins, 2013). Subsequently, the police asked Johnson to step out of the car for questioning and suspected that the suspect could be armed. The officer then patted Johnson down to search for a weapon, and a gun was found. Johnson was charged with weapon possession, but he challenged the case based on its consistency with the Terry stop. However, unanimous Court decision asserted that police officers have the right to frisk passengers in any lawful traffic stop if they have reasonable suspicion that a passenger is carrying a weapon (Hutchins, 2013).
In the recent past, however, some lawsuits and public concerns have led to a widespread objection of the Terry stop. Consequently, the most affected States, including New York, have initiated some forms of stop and frisk reforms.
Reforms
The NYDP has initiated reforms to improve stop and frisk policing practices. These reforms are aimed at reining in questionable tendencies of officers.
Police officers will no longer rely on a hunch to stop a person. In addition, it is noted that officers would no longer stop and frisk a person merely because of a ‘furtive movement, a mere presence in identified high crime locations, or a lone person standing. These observations are viewed as deficient bases for stop-and-frisk policing.
Police officers will be required to have individualized or specific reasonable suspicions to show that the suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.
Conclusion
In 1968, the Supreme Court established that Terry stop was an appropriate means of effecting order maintenance in communities. It was generally meant to facilitate questioning of suspects and protecting officers. Over the years, however, law enforcement agencies, specifically the police and the judiciary, have expanded, manipulated, and abused Terry stop. In this regard, the vital concept of a reasonable suspicion has taken a new direction and no longer protects citizens based on the provisions of the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the police are not accountable for their actions. This situation has led to unlawful interactions between police and members of the public.
On this note, it is observed that Terry stop requires reforms to protect human rights while safeguarding police officers during the course of their duties. The reforms will ensure that the gains provided under the Fourth Amendment are not degraded while guaranteeing the rule of law in the US.
References
Brennan, A., & Lieberman, D. (2014). Florida city’s ‘stop and frisk’ nabs thousands of kids, finds 5-year-olds ‘suspicious’. Fusion. Web.
Hutchins, R. (2013). Stop Terry: Reasonable Suspicion, Race, and A Proposal to Limit Terry Stops. Legislation and Public Policy, 16, 883-917.
Izzi, M. (2015). Stop and Frisk Laws. Web.
Keenan, D., & Thomas, T. M. (2014). An Offense-Severity Model for Stop-and-Frisks. Yale Law Journal, 123(5), 1448.
Mathias, C. (2015). NYPD Can’t Just Stop And Frisk People For The Hell Of It Anymore, Says Department Memo.The Huffington Post. Web.
New York Civil Liberties Union. (2016). Stop-and-Frisk Data. Web.
Saint Leo University. (2016). Core Values at Saint Leo University. Web.
Sexton, J., Sommerkamp, J., & Martin, J. (2014). Ineffable Intuition and Unreasonable Suspicion: Our Rule of Law Failure. SMU Law Review, 67(4), 729-744.