People are guaranteed to have rights and freedoms in democratic countries. All these rights are noted in the constitutions of the countries along with the obligations of the citizens. “The Bill of Rights” is a very important document in the life of Americans, as this Bill guarantees people’s rights and freedoms on the territory of the country. If all the rights of people were followed and kept, there would not be courts and jurisdictions in the society, which, unfortunately, is impossible in any country.
The courts are created to help people to prove that their rights were violated and to punish the injurer. The situations, where they stop and frisk arrests take place, should be provided in the society as it, on the one hand, increases the rate of criminals capturing, and on the other hand, does not violate the Fourth Amendment of “The Bill of Rights” as police work for the benefit of people’s security.
The court case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) is the example where two opposite opinions about the Fourth Amendment of “The Bill of Rights” were discussed. The main idea of the court trial was directed against the Cleveland police officer Martin McFadden, who was convinced for the violation of the Fourth Amendment of “The Bill of Rights”, which announces:
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.
Terry complained that McFadden violated the Fourth Amendment of “The Bill of Rights”, and in particular imposed the unreasonable frisk, as he did not know for sure whether the man had a weapon or not. The policeman’s actions were forced by his great experience in the police work (39 years as a policeman and 35 years as a detective). Moreover, the situation was strange and the policeman’s actions were provided according to the instruction. The men were asked to name themselves (no reaction), they were patted and only when the gun was felt, the police officer used his right to take off the clothes. McFadden had the right, as the policeman, to stop a person and ask to identify him/herself. In the case of the absence of any reaction, more specific actions had to be held, as it happened in the discussed case.
The question which arises in minds of people is whether the stop and frisk, which occurred in the case, was a search. It is was a search, and it was legal. As it is known, the search of a person, who seems suspicious, may be provided on the streets by the police officer. The question, which preceded the search, was about the people’s identification. After the refusal to say the names followed, the police officer’s suspicions were confirmed in some way. The patting, which followed only proved that the suspicious were right, and only then deeper investigation was provided.
The Court decision was reasonable and argumentative, and there is no supported right to contest it. The Court decided that “the need to prevent violent crime and the need for investigating officers to protect themselves from the threat of a hidden weapon outweighed the liberty and privacy interests infringed by this minimally intrusive search and seizure” (Bodenhamer & Ely, 2008, p. 155). As the Court proved and, as it may be understood by the side viewer, the actions of the policeman were legal, as it is the preliminary obligation of the police to protect people from the criminal actions and to prevent these actions, but not to make the notes about the committed violence.
The discussed Court procedure created the new right for the police officers, the stop and frisk arrest. Such kind of arrest allows the police officers to stop the person and ask him/her question about his/her personality, and then implement the frisk of the person on the street without any visible causes, just the reasonable suspicion of the police officer should be present. Policeman’s suspicions are not taken into account, just some actions provided by the person, which the policeman can name strange and provide the reasonable arguments to support his/her ideas (Bergman & Berman, 2008).
Taking of the weapon was not a seizure, as all necessary activities were provided by the policemen. The procedure, which police officer made, was discussed above, and it is in no way may be named as a seizure, as seizure supposed unpredictable, unannounced actions from the police side, when the person is not told about the reasons and goals of the stop and frisk. Moreover, the seizure supposes the argumentative and unchallengeable reasons, which McFadden did not have.
To support the given arguments, it is possible to mention that more and more people become captured on the streets, where only the suspicious behavior of the criminals and the quick eye of the policeman were the reasons for serious criminal arrests. Some people may refuse to understand such police behavior and argue that if the person is not seen in the violent act, there is no need to touch him/her. Such opinion is not supported by arguments and the people’s rights may not be taken into account as the policemen do not allow for themselves the actions which may limit people’s freedom without reasons. The policeman, as the representative of the law, has the right to come and to ask the person to identify him/herself and to show the documents. Such measures are implemented not as a fad or personal interest, they are provided with the aim of people’s security.
So, the Terry v. Ohio case (1968) was the first case when the actions of the police officers were contested but the trial did not give any results to the petitioner, as the actions of the policeman were considered legal. The situation with stop and frisk arrests is rather contestable, but it should not be argued that police officers make their duty, while streets patrolling, and their demands for the documents and things investigation should be perceived as normal affairs. People’s security is the main consideration of the officers and sometimes the actions which contradict the Fourth Amendment of “the Bill of Rights” take place, but this violation of the law is provided with the basis on some reasonable suspicions which are usually confirmed. Stop and frisk arrests should be provided as this supports people’s and the whole society’s security.
Reference List
Bergman, P. & Berman, S. J. (2008). Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. Nolo, California.
Bodenhamer, D. J. & Ely, J. W. (2008). The Bill of Rights in modern America. Indiana University Press, Indiana.
Cornell University Law School. United States Constitution: The Bill of Rights. Web.
Supreme Court of the United States. (1968). John W. Terry, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio. Web.