Controversial Law: The Stop And Frisk Case

The “stop and frisk” or “Terry frisk” law is one of the most controversial laws in America. The law came about via a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. This only holds if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the suspect maybe presently armed and or dangerous. The coming about of this law all started with a concealed weapons arrest in Cleveland, Ohio in the early 1960’s.
On October 31, 1963, detective Martin McFadden of the Cleveland police department was working as an undercover agent when he noticed two men on a street corner in downtown Cleveland. The two men were acting in a way the officer deemed “suspicious”, alternately pacing up and down the sidewalk staring into the same store window. The officer also noticed the two men would reconvene after each completion of the route. After watching this entire process take place about 12 times, officer McFadden saw a third man join the group for a brief conversation, then leaving. Officer McFadden was very suspicious at this point, and felt it was time for him to approach the
The reason the defense argued the initial search and subsequent seizure violated the Fourth Amendment of the men being accused is because the arresting officer did not have probable cause for arrest, and simultaneously did not posses a warrant to search the suspects. The court denied the motion to suppress the evidence, and inevitably found the men guilty. The defense appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, but the court held the original