Constitutionality of Stop and Frisk

The Supreme Court opinion regarding the actions the officer took in using excessive force was reasonable under the circumstances that Victor Harris had put other drivers and law enforcement officers in danger and concluded that Deputy Scott did not violate the constitutional rights by the use of unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment is the first line protection against the government and their officials from violating our privacy. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to individuals during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place. This Amendment protects us in the following situations such as being questioned while walking down the street, being pulled over while driving, entering individual’s homes for arrest and searching of evidence while there. In most scenarios, police officer may not search or seize an individual or his or her property unless the officer has a valid search warrant, a valid arrest warrant, or a belief rising to the

The Court of Appeals reversed and filed a petition for certiorari. The Supreme Court held that: "(1) apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement; (2) deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

Procedure:     Garner’s father brought the action the police officer took in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, looking for violations that were made of Garner’s constitutional rights. The complaint was alleged that the shooting of Garner violated the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. After a three day trial, the District Court entered judgement for all defendants. It dismissed the claims against the defendants as being the mayor and Officer Hymon and the Police Department as being the director for lack of evidence. Hymon’s actions were then concluded to being constitutional by being under the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals affirmed with regard to Hymon, finding that he had acted accordingly to the Tennessee statute. The Court of Appeals then reversed and remanded. It reasoned that the killing of a fleeing suspect is “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only if actions are reasonable. In this case the actions were found not to be reasonable. Officers cannot use deadly force unless they have probable cause that the suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or has committed a felony.

On June 10 1968, the United States Supreme Court sided with the government in the case Terry v Ohio, and held that the practice of “stop and frisk” was within the bounds of the 4th Amendment and therefore constitutional. On October 31, 1963, while walking a routine beat in Cleveland, Ohio, Officer Martin McFadden noticed a group of three African American men acting suspiciously outside of a jewelry store. After watching them walk by the store and reconvene almost 24 times, McFadden approached the group, identified himself as an officer and

The facts are that the police pushed past Victor’s mother to enter her home. Victor’s mother did not give them permission to enter her home to conduct a search or to seize any evidence. The police searched for and arrested Victor, searched his room, and seized shell casings. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States- The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. As well as part I, article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution- Every subject hath a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. Therefore, all warrants to search suspected places, or arrest a person for examination or trial in prosecutions for criminal matters, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order, in a warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure; and no warrant ought to be issued; but in cases and with the formalities, prescribed by law. It is the right of citizens not to have their homes entered and searched unless a warrant has been issued. Since the police officers who pushed their way into Victor’s mother’s house were not invited in, they needed to have obtained a warrant before forcing entry, apprehending Victor and seizing empty shell casings in Victor’s

Their reasoning was Officer Nolan did not have probable cause to stop the defendant and the gun to be “suppressed.” The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning but disagreed that a “high crime area” and a flight from Wardlow is justifiable to a “terry stop.” The Illinois Supreme Court found the “stop and arrest” to have “violated the Fourth Amendment.” The United States supreme court “granted certiorari” and reversed the decision.

On October 31st, 1963, an incident took place involving Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden and community members John W. Terry and Richard Chilton which resulted in the historical 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio. The decision ruled that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when stopped or searched by a police officer, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is committing a crime and has reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and dangerous.

The defense attempted to suppress the use of weapons for evidence stating that the search and seizure that was conducted in order to discover those weapons, was a violation of the fourth amendment.The motion to suppress however, was denied. Terry chose to fight the case with an appeal. This flipped the case in which it became Terry v Ohio rather than Ohio v Terry. The case reached the intermediate appellate court where John W. Terry attempted to appeal the conviction restating that an unlawful search occurred and that his arrest was a result of an invasion of privacy. Unfortunately for Terry the court of appeals upheld the original conviction and ignored the due process clause in which his defense relied on. In an 8-1 decision, the supreme court held that the search was reasonable under the 4th amendment and that officers are allowed to slightly expand the right to search if they feel a threat present. The reasoning behind it was simple. The men imposed a “threat” therefore everything that occurred was

Stop and frisk is common term in used in criminal law. There have been many debates as to the legality of stop and frisks and whether they should be legal or not. The Fourth Amendment to the constitution states the words”…upon probable cause…”(642). That gives necessary action to perform such searches and seizures. In the case Terry v. Ohio, John W. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Terry was therefore sentenced one to thee years in the penitentiary, which were the statutorily prescribed terms. The case brought up some questions as to whether the circumstances violated Terry and Chilton’s Fourth Amendment.

Although the US Supreme Court had a lot of cases dealing with criminal procedure, the Terry v. Ohio case brought in a new aspect for law enforcement. This case was brought up to the Supreme Court mainly because of the Fourth Amendment claims of searches and seizures and how the officer or law enforcement must have a probable cause before beginning a search. Usually the cases that involves the Amendments are taken very serious when brought upon the Supreme Court. Policemen for protection, they are allowed to perform a quick deep search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons and this action is permitted if the officer has a reasonable cause that the suspect is armed with something that can cause harm to anyone. The cause must be factual

Good case, Nolan had every right to frisk Wardlow after he fled the scene. Wardlow shows signs of guilt and suspicion. Wardlow did have a gun on him. In this incident Officer Nolan had every right to pat down Wardlow, for his safety after all Wardlow had already showed sign of guilt by fleeing when he saw the officers. On the other hand if Wardlow had nothing to hide why did he ran in the first place? Officer Nolan did had reasonable suspicion to frisk Wardlow after he fled in efforts to get away from the officers. Great the court was in favor of Officer Nolan and stated that he did not violate the Fourth amendment right against unreasonable

Individual’s rights according to U.S Constitution includes; the right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the 4th Amendment. The police’s stops and frisk procedures, falls under unreasonable search, seizure and racial targeting. The policy allows officers to stop, question or frisk. In Terry vs. Ohio, the court decided it was constitutional to balance between individual’s liberty and law and order [1].