Stops and frisks are some of the strategies that law-enforcement agencies use to help prevent crime and also to protect the officers and the innocent people from the dangers that could be the outcome of those crimes. Well, this is what exactly happened one afternoon in Cleveland, Ohio on 1968. Martin McFadden who has been a “police detective for thirty nine years” observed two men who were “acting strangely out on the streets of downtown Cleveland” (Criminal Procedure et al). According to McFadden, the two men have been "walking back and forth separately along Euclid Avenue" (aclu). This would have been considered a normal situation in downtown Cleveland had the two strangers not continued to meet and conferenced with each other in front of
…show more content…
By seeing this situation through the perspective of the court and the law enforcement agents, I have realized that officer McFadden had the right to stop and frisk these men. I agree with this because his intentions for doing so were only for the benefit of the innocent people and of himself. He was only doing his job, and that was to protect the people from any possible dangers. I believe that sometimes it is acceptable for officers to step beyond the boundaries a little bit, but only if they have a clear and solid evidence and information for doing so. However, in this ruling I believe that the citizens should have received more rights than what was allowed. Chilton and Terry didn’t get to explain why they were bearing the arms before they were frisked. Yes, pacing up and down the street and stopping in front of a jewelry store’s window to conference with another person may seem unusual, but the men have apparently been doing this routine 24 times. If they had been doing their routine many times before and have not posed as a threat to the people inside the store yet, then what proof does the court have that these men will indeed do something that could harm the store and the people? In other words, whatever their reasoning was as to why they have the guns, it should’ve been heard by the people and the court. We can’t just arrest someone for bearing arms, after all, it states in the second amendment that people have the right to bear arms. I firmly believe that we should pay more attention to this issue, the fact that law enforcement agents can search us without a warrant just because they felt like we were suspicious, because this issue often gets abused. It seems like every single time I turn the tv on and switch the channel to the news, I always hear of a new
By seeing this situation through the perspective of the court and the law enforcement agents, I have realized that officer McFadden had the right to stop and frisk these men. I agree with this because his intentions for doing so were only for the benefit of the innocent people and of himself. He was only doing his job, and that was to protect the people from any possible dangers. I believe that sometimes it is acceptable for officers to step beyond the boundaries a little bit, but only if they have a clear and solid evidence and information for doing so. However, in this ruling I believe that the citizens should have received more rights than what was allowed. Chilton and Terry didn’t get to explain why they were bearing the arms before they were frisked. Yes, pacing up and down the street and stopping in front of a jewelry store’s window to conference with another person may seem unusual, but the men have apparently been doing this routine 24 times. If they had been doing their routine many times before and have not posed as a threat to the people inside the store yet, then what proof does the court have that these men will indeed do something that could harm the store and the people? In other words, whatever their reasoning was as to why they have the guns, it should’ve been heard by the people and the court. We can’t just arrest someone for bearing arms, after all, it states in the second amendment that people have the right to bear arms. I firmly believe that we should pay more attention to this issue, the fact that law enforcement agents can search us without a warrant just because they felt like we were suspicious, because this issue often gets abused. It seems like every single time I turn the tv on and switch the channel to the news, I always hear of a new