Stops, Frisks, and Terry Stops - Research Paper Example

? Law Research Paper Stops, frisk and Terry stop are brief detention by the law enforcement officers if there is sufficient and probable cause to believe that the person has committed a felony. This standard of suspicion is often the same standard of issuing a warrant of arrest. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S 1 (1968), the US Supreme Court held that the law enforcement authorities could briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspected of involvement in crime. The Court held that such brief detentions were not violations of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution that protects citizens from illegal searches and seizures. This paper will analyze the Terry stop legal issue and its impact in the society. The paper will also look at constitutional issues that touch on the matter and the impact that they have had. Introduction The issue of stop, frisk and Terry stop is very controversial and has been debated for a long period of time. A Terry stop involves stopping of an individual by a law enforcement officer for frisking and in some cases a short detention. An individual may be stopped for frisking if they are suspected of having committed or being likely to commit a crime by a law enforcement officer. As one undergoes a Terry stop, the police officer frisks and individual (the suspect) to ensure that the officer is not in danger or other members of the public (Acker & Brody, 2012). A Terry stop is different from an arrest since it takes less time and is accompanied by less legal procedures. During a Terry Stop, a police officer usually confirm the details of the suspect and finds out whether they have a criminal record or outstanding fines or arrest warrants that have been issued against them. Groups that represent both sides of the argument present their debates which sound justified. Records of crime statistics show that there has been an increase in crimes that are committed all over the country. People all over the world feel that is up to the government to introduce measures that lead to a reduction of crime levels. Stop, frisks and Terry stops is one of the ways that was introduced by the government to try and curb crime levels all over the country. Law enforcers feel that prevention of crimes consumes fewer resources and saves more lives for minimal inconvenience if any to those that undergo the Terry stops. Discussions Stops, Frisks, and Terry Stops affect many individuals in the United States and perceptions on the government and law enforcement officers. This constitutional issue also affects the constitutional rights of individuals. Terry stop and frisk involves detention by police if they are suspicious that an individual has been involved in committing a crime. The Terry stop and frisk law was introduced in 1968 after the Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S 1 (1968) court decision that was made by the Supreme court in the United States. The decision also authorized the police to conduct searches on the outer garments of the suspect if they have articulable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. The court authorized law enforcers to being able to detain an individual who they suspect is involved in committing a crime. Law enforcement officers also have the legal right to search the individual that they have detained. In some cases, the law enforcers might feel that the suspect might be in possession of a weapon, and may be planning to use in order to commit a crime. The rationale that causes the law enforcers to feel that the individual is likely to commit a crime should be reasonable. For example, a suspect might look overly nervous yet there is no evident reason why they should appear so. Such behavior might be an indication that such an individual is about to commit a crime. The law authorizes police officers to seize any form of contraband that they would find on a suspect while conducting the frisking. However there are some conditions in the frisking of the suspect (Acker & Brody, 2012). The frisking should be limited to the outer clothing of the defendant. The contraband that the police officers seize should be easily identifiable. For example; the police officers cannot seize the suspect’s possession if they do not have the slightest clue as to what the content might be. In most states in the country, when an individual is stopped by the police, he or she is supposed to validate their identity. The individual should give the law enforcer their legal form of identification such as their driving license. However, in some states, a Terry stop and frisk should be limited to questioning and frisking. Otherwise, the law enforcers and the government (their employer) might be liable for violation of the individual’s fourth and fifth amendment. Provision(s) of the United States on stops, frisks and Terry stop The Fourth Amendment of the constitution of the United States of America dictates that law enforcement officers should show a legal warrant to an individual before they can search him or his property. This amendment of the bill of rights was made with the intent of protecting individuals even if they might have self incriminating material with them. Such a legal provision also ensures that police officers and other law enforces do not abuse their power. The Fifth Amendment is also related to the frisk and Terry stop that is usually conducted by law enforcers. This amendment was formulated to ensure that law enforces and other government officials do not abuse their power. Such abuse of power can occur when lawful procedures are not followed or when an individual’s possessions are searched or detained. The Fifth Amendment was designed in such a manner that it would limit the property or possessions that law enforcers can make. An individual who is seen as a suspect by law enforcers should ask for a warrant before any search is made. Therefore, no incriminating evidence is found by the police officers or any other law enforcers. In most cases, police officers and other law enforcers can use the evidence that the collect against a suspect against that suspect in a court of law. Individuals should educate themselves on the content of the law so that they can demand for their rights when necessary. In some cases, police officers and other law enforcers might not brief suspects on their rights. In such cases, individuals might contribute to gathering up of evidence against them which would be used in a court of law. Federal or state statutes Different states have different statutes that impact the Terry stop issue. In the state of Nevada, when an individual is stopped by the police, they are supposed to provide some form of legal identification. This condition is mandatory and should be expected by the members of this state. Most states in the country have adopted this law with the intent of trying to curb crime levels. Federal law allows Terry stop for travelers at an airport. A law enforcement officer that works at an airport has a right to search the property or luggage of a traveler who he/ she finds suspicious. The Terry search can be limited to the use of a professionally trained police dog to sniff for narcotics from the traveler’s luggage (Acker & Brody, 2012). Some of the State statutes that authorize Terry stops include Arizona California Stop statute 1982 and Frisk Statute 1957 that authorize law enforcement officers to detain persons who are reasonably suspected to have violated firearm provisions. Another State statute is Colorado C.R.S.A of 1972 that allow police officers to demand names and addresses and conduct pat-down searches for weapons for their own safety. Kansas K.S.A 22-2402 also authorizes Terry stops while McKinney’s C.P.L 140.50 of New York authorizes ‘pat-down’ frisks and demand for names and address by the police officers. Vermont has a Sabotage Statute that authorizes Terry stops while Texas Warrantless Arrest Statute also authorizes the Terry stops. Decisions of the United States Supreme Court that impact this issue There have been many court cases that have been related to the Terry stop issue. In one incident, a suspect was arrest after a police officer conducted a Terry Stop. A police officer observed that there was a group of individuals that were paying too much attention to a particular building and especially at odd hours. The police officer felt that it was highly likely that the individuals were checking out the location so that they could plan out a robbery in the future. The police officer therefore approached the group of individuals and asked one of them to step out of the vehicle. On frisking the suspect, he found that he was carrying a gun. The suspect was therefore arrested for gun possession (Pollock, 2012). However, such a search would stop being a legal Terry stop if it involved detention and even arrest of such a suspect. If a police officer was to detain or take away the travel ticket of such a suspect, then he would be held liable for violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S constitution. When the case was taken to court, the judge decided that the police officer had acted reasonably and within the confines of the Terry stop law. The suspect had wanted the evidence of the gun possession since it was discovered when the police officer made a search without a legal search warrant. The decision made by the judge seemed reasonable. If the police officer had not discovered the gun, it is possible that the suspect might have used it on him. By carrying out a Terry stop, the police officer ensured that no crime was committed by the particular suspect. Therefore, the legal procedure of Terry Stop and frisking of suspects contributed to curbing of crime. Even individuals that might be against the use of Terry stop and frisking would have to agree that the Fifth Amendment deserved to be overlooked in this case to ensure that the safety of all those that were concerned was maintained. In 1997, a court ruled in favor of the actions of a policeman that conducted a Terry stop and frisking on a suspect. The policeman ordered the suspect to stop and to move out of the vehicle for frisking. The policeman had ordered the suspect to move outside the vehicle due to safety concerns. He noticed that the suspect had something in his pocket and on frisking him he discovered that it was a gun. The suspect and other passengers in the vehicle had all been ordered to leave the car. According to the judge, even passengers in the vehicle are legally bound to leave the vehicle during a Terry stop to ensure safety of the law enforcement officer and other innocent individuals. In the case of Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S 1032 (1983), the Supreme Court was of the opinion that police officers can search car compartments if he or she reasonably suspects the suspect to be armed. In the case of Knowles v, Iowa U.S. 113 (1998), the Court ruled that police officer can ‘terrypatdown’ the passenger compartments of vehicles if they believe the occupant is dangerous. In the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S 177, the court held that persons detained under Terry stops for identification persons was not a violation of 4th Amendment that prohibits unlawful searches. In the case of United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S 531, 544 (1985), the Court approved the detention of travelers suspected of alimentary canal drug smuggling at the borders for more than 24 hours. Some activists feel that there has been too many cases of Terry stop that lead to arrest of suspects due to the evidence that is found and collected against these individuals. It is as if individuals that are subjected to a Terry stop do not stand any chance stand minimal chances of remaining innocent. To make the matter worse than it already is, it is the evidence that the suspects give which is used against them. Therefore, maybe there should be introduction of Miranda rights before a Terry stop is carried out. In such a way, individuals can avoid getting easily incriminated due to illegal substances that they might be found in possession of. In some cases, an individual might not even be aware that they are in possession of certain property. Therefore, they increase the dangers of being arrested. Unfortunately, even if unaware, such an event is likely to end up in one’s permanent record. Some states have a three strikes rule. According to this rule, one might be exposed to long term jail time regardless of the intensity of the crime that they commit (Pollock, 2012). If a Terry stop suspect has his Miranda rights read to him before hand, he might refrain from making comments that might later be used against him in a court of law. Such action might even contribute to reduction of crime because most individuals would stay alert knowing that they can be stopped and the stop can lead to detainment. The detainment can then lead up to arrest based on evidence; physical or verbal, that is collected during the time when the stop is made. Research cites that most individuals seem unaware that information or evidence that they avail; both verbal and physical during a Terry stop can be used against them in a court of law. In a Terry stop case involving a petitioner known as Hiibel, the court made their decision in favor to the policeman that was involved in the case. The policeman in the state of Nevada had order Hiibel to identify himself; which he failed to do. Hiibel failed to answer the question because he felt that it was in violation of his Fourth amendment right. According to the United States Supreme Court, the policeman was within his authority for asking Hiibel to identify himself. Based on his training, Hiibel was acting suspiciously and the policeman wanted to ensure that he had taken the necessary precautions to maintain safety. Currently, there are many individuals who feel that the constitution should be changed so that there can be provisions on protecting the privacy of people in the United States of America. According to research findings on current crime levels, there seems to be no or minimal effect of Terry stop and frisking. However, activists who support Terry stop and frisking laws feel that the only problem could be the means that the law enforcers are using to profile potential suspects. According to research findings, only 3% of the individuals that have been profiled actually turn out to be involved in crime. As a result, individuals who are subjected to the Terry stop and frisking laws feel frustrated because they time is wasted and no genuine criminals are caught. People who are against the Terry stop and frisking laws also feel that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments in the constitution should be removed because they do not offer any form of protection to individuals. When the law enforcers suspect that an individual has broken the law, they search him/ her even without a warrant. This is in accordance with the law that a policeman only needs a reason within legal limits that an individual might be guilty of a crime. Individuals who might be caught on the wrong side of the law do not have sufficient time to call up their attorneys to give them proper legal advice on how to not incriminate themselves. Some law enforcement officers intimidate suspects to giving incriminating evidence. Giving the information to the law enforcement officers is not necessary and it is used against the individuals to incriminate them in a court of law. Solutions to the issue Terry Stop has contributed to curbing of many crimes through preventing them even before they happen (Acker & Brody, 2012). The members of the public should be educated on the issue of Terry stop and its importance in the society. The law enforcement department should collaborate with the media so that they can highlight the positive attributes of Terry stop. Where necessary, the government should cooperate with stakeholders in the private industry especially those whose profit levels are adversely affected by crime. Such private organizations would gladly contribute to funding to Terry stop and frisking public education initiatives. The attitude of the people in the community towards the laws that are in use is of paramount importance. The constitutional issue has high chances of succeeding especially if the members of the public are likely to take part and co-operate. The members of the public can pass on useful information about suspicious activity of crimes in their neighborhoods. Such information can in turn be used to reduce real cases of crime in communities (Shapiro, 2010). Research on the attitude towards Terry stop indicates that although sometimes it can feel evasive, it is necessary and important. Terry stops and frisking by policemen contribute to trust of law enforcement and the government by the members of the public. A country is more likely to prosper socially and economically if its people have faith and trust in the government. To create legal balance, there should be equality in the number of Terry stops that are conducted by law enforcement officers in different regions of states in the country. In order for people in the community to positively respond to Terry stops and frisking, they should be able to feel comfortable doing so. Most individuals especially those from middle and low income neighborhoods feel harassed because they feel that the rich in the community are not subjected to similar conditions (Shapiro, 2010). Equality in carrying out Terry stops should be exercised since there is no individual who is above the law. Ethnic minorities in different states also feel that they are discriminated against in the frequency of Terry stops that are conducted. The African American community is the most affected by this notion. Most members of this community feel that there is a ready judgment on their character based on statistics of the number of people from their race that are already in prison. In such a developed country such as the United States of America, individuals should be made to feel equal based on the treatment that they are given. Terry stop and frisking should not be based on one’s economic, education or racial background. It would have been expected that globalization and growth in technology would result to reduction in crime. There is an increase in information sharing which has led to people’s awareness about their constitutional rights. Many law abiding citizens feel that their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights are violated when the Terry stop and frisking law is executed by law enforcement officers. The government should come out strongly defending the importance of the Terry stop and frisking law to promote security. The government should launch a campaign that promotes the Terry stop and frisking law all over the country with the goal of reducing crime rates with a certain percentage such as 10%. Updates on the progress of the crime rate reduction levels targets should be given to the members of the public so that they feel included in security improvement and country building. Social policy implications of the above solution The issue of Terry stops and frisking has many other social issues that are related to it. Most racial minority groups already hold the attitude that they are likely to be discriminated on the execution of Terry stops and frisking by law enforcement officers. This reduces their cooperation levels which undermines the Terry stop and frisking initiative (Shapiro, 2010). Change of this attitude is bound to take a lot of time and other resources in trying to curb criminal activity in the community. This situation is contributed by the feeling that one is pre-judged based on the color of their skin or neighborhood from which they come from. This contributes to a form of anger from some ethnic communities because they feel that the information that they give to law enforcers might be used to worsen their already bad situations. Educating the members of the public about the importance of Terry stop and frisking might consume a lot of resources. The government is already in so much debt and Congress might fail to introduce and pass bills that promote sustainable ways through which the Terry stop and frisking law can be better perceived by the members of the public. Members of the police need to admit that most of them have been using racial profiling as a means of conducting Terry stops and frisking for suspects. In a study that was carried out in 1997, it was discovered that law enforcement officers in Florida were seven times more likely to conduct a Terry stop and frisk exercise on a black driver in comparison to a white driver. While about 40 % of the African American drivers were stopped and searched, only 6% of white drivers were stopped and searched. These research findings indicate that there is a common perception among law enforcement officers that African American individuals are more likely to commit crimes in comparison to their Caucasian counterparts (Samaha, 2011). Release of such information into the public is bound to cause a lot of uproar from human rights activists and ethnic minorities. However, progress in this area can only be made if the government first admits that it has made a mistake before trying to curb high crime levels. Conclusion The paper has successfully looked at the constitutional issue of Terry stop and frisking law in the United States of America. The Terry stop and frisking law was introduced to try and reduce crime levels throughout the country in the different states. In Terry stop and frisking law, an individual is supposed to stop when asked to do so by a law enforcement officer. In most cases, the law enforcement officer will ask the suspect to step out of the car whereby they will be frisked. The police officer is also highly likely to ask for a form of legal identification document. The policeman then makes a radio call to the police station whereby he/ she gets the legal information and details on such an individual. The information that is given by the police station can include information on past crimes that were committed or arrest warrants that have been issued. A Terry stop is brief and is not like an actual arrest. In an actual arrest, an individual is taken to the police station and they are held for not less than 24 hours. While there is part of the population that supports Terry stop and frisking law others feel strongly against it. Individuals that are against the law feel that it infringes on their Fourth and Fifth Amendment in the constitution. According to research, the execution of the Terry stop and frisking law has been prejudiced against African Americans for a long time. This execution has resulted in development of a negative attitude among ethnic minorities in the population. It has also resulted in less cooperation from members of the public especially from neighborhoods and communities that are of low income status. The government should collaborate with the media and other stakeholders in the private industry to change this execution and public perception. Change in attitude among the members of the public might result in increased cooperation which would in turn contribute to reduction in crime levels. References Acker, J.R. & Brody, D.C. (2012). Criminal Procedure: A Contemporary Approach. Massachusetts. Jones & Bartlett. Gardner, T.J. & Anderson, M.T. (2009). Criminal Evidence: Principles & Cases. Ohio. Cengage Brain. Kanovitz, J.R. (2012). Constitutional Law. London. Elvisier Pollock, J.M. (2012). Criminal Law. London. Elvisier. Samaha, J. (2011). Criminal Procedure. Ohio. Cengage Brain. Shapiro, L.E. (2010). Miranda Warnings & Terry Stops: another perspective. University of Memphis Legal review. 15 (1): 113. Read More