Should Prisons Be Privatized

The case arose when a police officer observed three individuals engaging in conduct which appeared to him, on the basis of training and experience, to be the “casing” of a store for a likely armed robbery; upon approaching the men, identifying himself, and not receiving prompt identification, the officer seized one of the men, (Albanese, J. S. Criminal Justice, 5th edition p.162) patted the exterior of his clothes, and discovered a gun. The Court wrote that the Fourth Amendment was applicable to the situation, applicable “whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away.” Since the warrant clause is necessarily and practically of no application to the type of on-the-street encounter present in Terry, the question was whether the policeman’s actions were reasonable. The test of reasonableness in this sort of situation is whether the police can point to “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” would lead a neutral magistrate on review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing that possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop and a “frisk” was required.
Frisk, The Court distinguished between a “stop” and an ‘arrest’ and between a “frisk” and a ‘”search.” A frisk was defined as a patting down of outer clothing, whereas a search is an exploration for evidence. Seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possession of that property. ( Albanese, J.S, Criminal Justice, 5th edition ,p. 163) So how does the action of these men warrant probable cause? If the strange actions of these men cause suspension, will every police officer stop and frisk everyone because in their opinion they are acting strangely or is it because a certain ethnic group warrants policing more than others. Why does it seems that the rights of prisoners are more upholding than the rights of free