is impaired in any way in order to pull them over. So yes Officer Smith did have reasonable suspicion to pull the car over in the first place. 1. Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? “Stop and frisk” was discussed in the case of Terry v Ohio from 1968. In the case an experienced plain clothes officer observed 3 men acting suspiciously in front of a store. The officer concluded that they were casing the store‚ preparing to rob it so he approached them. He identified himself
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio Searches and seizures
have been used in a crime resulting in the death of a police officer. This gave Officer Smith reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime there may have been some criminal activity involving the vehicle‚ the driver or both. The 1968 case was Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1) deemed that an officer may pat down a person for weapons only if the officer has the additional reasonable suspicion that the pat down is necessary for safety reasons. Since a vehicle similar to the vehicle that Officer Smith had stopped
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio Criminal law
the treatment of juvenile criminals all appeared on the Court’s docket. o Docket: A calendar of the cases awaitinga ction in a court. A brief entry of the court proceedingsin a legal case. The book containing such entries. • Mapp Vs. Ohio: The first of several significant cases in which it reevaluated the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to State judicial systems. Constitutional Issues: • The question for the case involved the 4th Amendment: Protection against “unreasonable
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Unit 2 Assignment CJ 227-01: Criminal Procedure “One may well ask: How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but‚ a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely‚ one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King‚ Jr. Imagine a perfect society‚ where the population had a standard
Premium Searches and seizures Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
discriminate directly or indirectly at a specific race. Members of minority groups are more likely to be stopped and frisked than any other race in New York City. (source?) The stop and frisk policy was implemented after the Supreme Court case of Terry vs. Ohio‚ which ruled that an officer can perform a search on a person without a warrant‚ if the officer suspects that the person may be armed or dangerous. (source?) This case paved the way to one of the most controversial police procedures in New York-stop
Premium Terry v. Ohio New York City Search and seizure
to‚ the Terry stop. The term stop and frisk refers to the practice by the New York Police Department in which a police officer stops and questions an individual and then frisks them for weapons. This tactic gives officers the power to stop and search anyone only if the officer has reasonable suspicion and they suspect the person is involved in criminal activity or is in possession of something illegal. The reason this practice was used was to prevent crimes from taking place or to
Premium Police Search and seizure Terry v. Ohio
an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person‚” (Farlex‚ 2008‚ pg. 1). How stop and frisk became the system used by police officers was “After Terry this type of police encounter became known as a ‘Terry stop’ or an ‘investigatory detention.’ Police may stop and question suspicious persons‚ pat them down for weapons‚ and even subject them to
Premium Police Search and seizure Terry v. Ohio
Stop and frisk is very beneficial because the law enforcement officers has a reasonable suspicion to stop an individual if a crime has occurred or plan to occur. “Stop and frisk is essential to the probable cause and warrant requirements.” (Hall‚ p. 415‚ 2015). Many times law enforcement officers do not follow the stop and frisk and abuse the law by doing the opposite by following the law. It is important that law enforcement take authority when necessary instead of making citizens feel unsafe and
Premium Police Search and seizure Terry v. Ohio
Is New York City’s Stop and Frisk law infringing upon Americans rights? In 2011‚ 685‚ 724 people were stopped and frisked by the police. This is a record high by more than 50‚000 stops in New York City‚ 87% of the stops were either black or Latino‚ raising the question of is this morally ethical due to racial profiling (NYCLU‚ 2014). Why should an individual be stopped and frisked without probable cause? Stopping and frisking without probable cause is an act of racism‚ profiling someone due
Premium New York City Police Search and seizure
Laura Disla English 201 Professor Langrone 04/03/12 Stop and Frisk Stop and frisk is a program that the New York Police Department uses to stop and search anyone who looks suspicious. Police can stop and frisk anyone without a warrant. This topic is causing many controversies because of the excessive numbers of arrest. A disproportionate number of people of color especially African America and Hispanics are unreasonably stopped and searched simply for looking suspicious. They are the one
Premium Police Crime Search and seizure