Terry Fox

The legal significance of "reasonable suspicion" to stop and frisk an individual versus "probable cause" to arrest and individual. Reasonable suspicion is the presumption a crime has been committed or will happen. Based on the evidence informed by police officers experience and interpretation. But, is less than probable cause to an arrest. Probable cause, holds a belief given by facts and more of concrete evidence of a crime. For example, police need reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk and…

The legal precedent for what is known today as Stop and Frisk is a result of the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio (1968). In 1963, John W. Terry was arrested in Cleveland, Ohio and charged with possession of a concealed weapon. A police officer, acting on suspicion that Terry was planning to commit a robbery, detained him and patted him down. Terry and his lawyers claimed that his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated because the police officer did not have…

Stop-and-Frisk Policy Review According to the Washington Post article “Here’s what you need to know about stop and frisk — and why the courts shut it down” by Dylan Matthews, Stop and Frisk is “an NYPD policy wherein police will detain and question pedestrians, and potentially search them, if they have a reasonable suspicion that the pedestrian in question committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor” (Matthews). This means that if a person appears…

In 1968, the United States Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio decided that police may stop a person for questioning and frisk, without probable cause, if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. The New York City Liberty Union website provides a total number of how many people were stopped from the year 2002 to 2016, while also providing a racial breakdown of how many of that total were blacks, whites, and Latinos. According to this website, in…

Stop and frisk is an unjust crime prevention that gives permission to provided police officers to stop a person and frisk them based on “reasonable suspicions” of possible criminal activities. Although nowadays it seems to be a way for police officers to harass people on the street specifically minorities. From this program, minorities experienced police interrogations, physical assault, and even arrests, only to establish innocence in court. Despite being declared unconstitutional in 2013,…

Q3. Describe a case incident where a ‘stop and frisk’ is allowed and rationale for it. A ‘stop and frisk’ is something when a police officer stops an individual or a group to question and further to search for weapons or any illegal activities under criminal circumstances. Search includes patting down i.e. checking an individual with hands from the top of the clothes and also removing upper part of clothes if the officer thinks the suspect is carrying some armed weapons and is dangerous. Many…

Resubmission: Exploring if stop and search permits racism. Introduction Stop and search is a power used by Police to detain suspected individuals so that the Police can look for weapons, drugs or stolen property. The term stop and search has been defined by Bryant, Bryant and Graca (2012) as ‘’an umbrella term for 19 powers a police officer has to arrest you’’. However to be able to detain someone for a search it is mentioned within the PACE ACT 1984 that an officer must have ‘’reasonable…

trafficking of illegal drugs. In the United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that the police have the power to detain, question, and investigate suspected drug couriers. The case involved a Terry stop at an international airport, during which the defendant aroused suspicion by conforming to a controversial "drug courier profile" developed by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA). The Court said that the DEA profile gave the officer…

Police should be allowed to stop and frisk subjects who seem suspect. In the case Terry v. Ohio (1968) the Supreme Court’s ruling allowed the procedures of “Stop and Frisk” to be acceptable. For a stop and first to be considered legal, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that a crime has already occurred or is about to take place. Only then can a police officer start a line of questioning toward the suspect. However, the “frisk” portion of stop and frisk must only be done if the…

was patrolling in plain clothes on a downtown street across from a store. He has been patrolling around the same area for about 30 years. Over the years he has developed a routine habit. In this case McFadden observed two strangers named Chilton and Terry. These two men were taking turns to walk back and forth on the same route. They both would alternately walk and then pause to stare inside the window of the same store. Then, at the completion of each route, they both would meet on the corner…