Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous. October 31, 1963, while on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden, age 62, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue and acting in a way the officer thought was suspicious. Detective McFadden watch these two guys going back and forward doing the same routine about a dozen times staring in the same store window. Next, Detective McFadden saw another third person join in the transaction named Katz exchanging words casing out the store front and Katz walking away. So Detective McFadden approached the three and begun to ask questions.
Stop question and frisk has created a lot of controversy because of the misuse police officer are giving it. Evidence provided by the Huffington Post and the New York Times suggest that many of these stops can be attributed to racial. in a 2011 Statistic given by the Center for Constitutional Rights, show that black and Latinos are disproportionately stopped, black make the 51% of the people being stop and frisk and Latinos/Hispanic make the 33%. But, this not enough to say that stop question and frisk is not a useful tactic and that is not a good tool for officer and community safety. Journalists have mentioned about an increase in murder in New York City, and one of the reasons to this is that the city has settled the practice of stop question and frisk because "the department 's stop and frisk tactics were unconstitutional" said the judge Shira A. Scheindlin of Federal District Court.
In the case of Chicago vs. Morales, under the ordinance, if a police officer observes a person whom he reasonably believes to be a gang member loitering in a public place with one or more persons, he shall order them to disperse. Anyone who does not promplty obey such an order has violated the ordinance. The consequences for someone violating the order is that the officer has the authority to arrest the person. However, the State Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the ordinance violates due process in that it is impermissibly vague on its face and arbitrary restriction on personal liberties. During the three years of its enforcement, the police is sued over 89,000 dispersal orders and arrested over 42,000 people for violating the order (Daley, R. & Hillard, T., June 1998).
Studies have shown that Hispanics were stopped 33%, and African-American were stopped 51%, despite only being 24% (Hispanics) and 26% (African-American) of the community (Gelman, A. et al, 2012). In the other hand Caucasians made up 43.4% of the population, but were only stop and frisk 12.9%(Gelman, A. et al, 2012). Do to the disparity of who was stopped with the use of stop and frisk there were protest by unsatisfied civilians who saw the actions of the police as unfair and unjust. “On June 17, 2012 several thousand protester marched down Manhattan Fifth Avenue from lower Harlem to then Major Michael Bloomberg’s upper eastside townhouse” to protest the policy of the NYPD of stop question and frisk (Francesani, C.,
In the court 's language, “ We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others ' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken”. (Terry v. Ohio, 1968) (Wright, 2013). An example of reasonable suspicion would be if an officer is in a neighborhood and he has been notified of drug dealers in the area and sees a man walking up to cars and making handshakes which could indicate a drug exchange and then the officer walks up and confronts the man on reasonable suspicion, but if the officer actually seen the man handling the drugs then his would be considered probable cause. When there is no reasonable suspicion or probably cause in a criminal case then the suspect is acquitted of all the allegations against them and the case will be dismissed due to the lack of
Due to the stop and frisk law, police officers are allowed to stop anyone that they choose on the street and search them, but only if they have reasonable suspicion. This law was established in 1968 in the case of Terry v. Ohio, when police was stopping an individual on the street they needed to make it a justified stop and frisk. For example: a suspicious person was walking around in the middle of night ducking and dodging down dark alleyways, the police have a right to stop and frisk this person to see if they are armed and dangerous and to question them. But back to the Terry v. Ohio case, the stop and frisk law has been an effective tool for police officers since 1968 when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. After the ruling when the
An example of race in the article “The Disproportionate Risks of Driving While Black” is when the article says “Violence is rare, but routine traffic stops more frequently lead to searches, arrests and the opening of a trapdoor into the criminal justice system that can have a lifelong impact, especially for those without the financial or other resources to negotiate it (Sharon LaFraniere/Andrew W. Lehren, p.2).” The quote clarifies that in LaFraniere a distinction in race is extremely clear and that there should be changes in light of the fact that the solid disparity in race is bringing about issues with police and upheaval of viciousness. Likewise, the article “The Disproportionate Risks of Driving While Black” displays race when the article says “In the seven states with the most sweeping reporting requirements—Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, and Rode Island—the data show police officers are more likely to pull over black drivers than white ones, given their share of local driving-age population (LaFraniere and Lehren, pg. 2-3).” This quote explains that by itself it proves little issues because African-Americans are generally poorer than whites, however they may have more records that attracts officers. Finally, race has been a big issue in the Greensboro case and has shed light that there needs to be something done about the inequalities within race in the
Stop and Frisk is a program performed by many police departments around the United States. New York is the origin of the Stop and Frisk program; it is also practiced the most in New York. The policy is starting to spread nationwide; but that is not a good idea. The policy of Stop and Frisk is when a group of undercover police officers unexpectedly stop and seizure a person under reasonable suspicion to look for weapons or other contraband. This program is meant to catch suspects off guard and out of order.
Do you think the justice system is fair or equal? Or is there a thin line between whites and blacks when it comes to justice. In pop-culture, the mass media makes the criminal justice system look very flawed. Within the last few years mass media has showed flaws in the press, police techniques and hate and then conservation rates due to the criminal justice system. If we didn 't have such outlets as Twitter Instagram Facebook etc.
(Heumann, Milton, and Lance 85) In Maryland, blacks were stopped at a significantly greater rate than the actual proportion of black drivers, and yet the rate of successful searches for contraband with the same as whites, suggests the fact that race played a large part in initial stop practices by some police. (Heumann, Milton, and Lance 91) In california, a California Legislator revealed 90% of all motorist arrested by pipeline units since 1991 have been members of minority group. (Heumann, Milton, and Lance 88) African-American motorists in particular, and minority motorists in general, were proportionately more likely than whites to be stopped on the roadway studied. (Racial Profiling: Limited Data Available on Motorist Stops : Report to the Honorable James E. Clyburn, Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus) In 2004, Amnesty International USA conservatively estimated that one in three people in the United States approximately is at high risk of being subjected to some form of racial profiling, based on the number of US citizens that were racially categorized by the US 2000 Census. (Threat and Humiliation: Racial Profiling, Domestic Security, and Human Rights in the United States) A 2000 report n Los Angeles revealed that one in four officers in Los Angeles agreed that racial profiling exists and contributes to a negative interaction between police and the community.