Robert Apel stated that “[i]ndeed, an important legal justification for SQF is the personal safety of police officers, who are authorized to perform a protective pat-down if they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person is engaged in criminal activity and could be armed and dangerous (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).” Apel, R. (2016, February). The Deterrent Effect of Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices. Criminology And Public Policy, 15(1), 57-66. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12175/full. at page 59. Proponents of this policy will first point to the safety of the officers and the safety of the public at large in support of continuing the use of Stop Question and Frisk. This was a major concern in the Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio. Any opponent to this policy would be hard pressed to argue for the removal of any policy the end result of which makes it more dangerous for police officers to carry out their
Robert Apel stated that “[i]ndeed, an important legal justification for SQF is the personal safety of police officers, who are authorized to perform a protective pat-down if they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that a person is engaged in criminal activity and could be armed and dangerous (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).” Apel, R. (2016, February). The Deterrent Effect of Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices. Criminology And Public Policy, 15(1), 57-66. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1745-9133.12175/full. at page 59. Proponents of this policy will first point to the safety of the officers and the safety of the public at large in support of continuing the use of Stop Question and Frisk. This was a major concern in the Supreme Court decision of Terry v. Ohio. Any opponent to this policy would be hard pressed to argue for the removal of any policy the end result of which makes it more dangerous for police officers to carry out their