I felt like no one would believe me. I couldn’t tell anyone. I kept it in till now... I still am scared. Definition of stop and frisk: “Stop and frisk” is the police practice of temporarily detaining people on the street, questioning them, and possibly also frisking or searching them.
Ohio-Stop and Frisk Searches’, Net Industries states that “a police officer may stop someone on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in wrongdoing; and may on a similarly reasonable basis--i.e., one that will hold up to scrutiny in the courtroom--"frisk" or search the subject.” (Net Industries). Additionally the officer, McFadden, had seen Terry and his friends walking around the block as if they were casing a job and he had reasonable suspicion that they were engaging in some sort of wrongdoing. McFadden saw the three men and saw that they were pacing around the same store five times; which he thought meant that they were casing a job, or a
Another valuable search by law enforcement is the Stop and Frisk. Law enforcement officers have the right to protect themselves during brief interviews with citizens. A frisk is a limited pat down of the outer clothing that can occur to an individual when reasonable suspicion is suspected. Under the stop and frisk doctrine, law enforcement officers are looking for weapons.
In this paper many will understand the concepts and the role of a stop and frisks. It will allow the readers to see the good and perhaps the bad of stop and frisk process. The research will also allow the readers to see how law enforcement can abuse power of authority in certain situation. Stop and frisk can be good and evil depending on the type of police officer at the time using his or her belief of the “Golden Rule” (meaning treating others with respect as everyone wants to be treated.) Stop and frisk is when police temporarily detain somebody and pat down their outer clothing when there are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a person is armed and dangerous.
Stop and Frisk is a practice used by police officers as it gives them the power to stop,question,and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. In the New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander says “ In ‘colorblind’ America criminals are the new whipping boys. They are entitled to no respect and little moral concern” (Alexander). There is no such thing as color blindness. When you first look at me what do you see?
Who came into contact with it, why were the evidence being handle, and if any changes were made to the evidence or date during the time it was being handled. Before any search warrant can be issued, probable cause must be clearly established. This is so law enforcement can connect property or a thing to be searched with the commission of a specific crime.
Stop and Frisk Stop and Frisk, the tactic that has been going on for only for short time, yet there seems to be racial tension already. But is this new information actually true or is it just good policing? According to Heather Mac Donald from the Manhattan Institute, says “what looks like racial profiling might just be good policing”. However according to Ranjana Natarajan from the Washington post “it’s clear that two issues need to be addressed: racial profiling and police use of excessive force.” Unfortunately we cannot have both ways.
This creates a situation that allows police officers discretion in the way they think about what they see and how they handle those with whom they come in contact. There has been an effort by the research community to examine issues concerning how police act and respond in general and what police do specifically when they interact with citizens. A conspicuous void in the research effort has been the lack of attention paid to the process by which police officers form suspicion about a suspect whether or not a formal intervention such as a stop was made. Officers in Savannah, Georgia were observed and debriefed after they became suspicious about an individual or vehicle. Observers accompanied officers on 132, 8-hour shifts, during
For example, in certain circumstances where a police officer has a legible belief that a suspect has perpetrated a crime, or if a suspect is a threat to public security a warrantless arrest may be valid (Strasser 1). Meaning, if a police officer has a good reason to believe a suspect has done something illegal, and if they arrest the suspect without a warrant it might be okay. According to Strasser, “A warrantless arrest may be justified where probable cause and urgent need are present prior to the arrest” (1). Therefore, a warrantless arrest might be validated where likely cause and imperative need are present previous to the arrest. An arrest without a warrant may be disregarded, if the police officer fails to demonstrate vital circumstances (Strasser 1).
Since due process is how we define the order and the correct way of doing things, this is how it applies: In the Terry versus Ohio case, Terry believe that officers should have probable cause before the officer was able to stop and frisk individuals. Under the Fourth Amendment, officers have the right to stop and frisk without probable cause, meaning the process McFadden used was correct. On the other hand, in Miranda versus Arizona, Miranda had not been informed of his right to remain silent before giving his confession of committing the crimes he had been accused of. In turn his confession was not valid. If the officers had used the correct process and made Miranda aware of his right to remain silent, his confession could have been used in trial.
The most essential part of our judicial system is that it is based on the presumption that the accused is innocent unless proven guilty beyond doubt. Also it is better that ten guilty are held free than one innocent being falsely implicated in a case. Thus the burden of proof in a criminal case is very high.