Frisking

Ever since 1968 and the Supreme Court case of “Terry vs Ohio” was settled, stop and frisking policies have been used by police everywhere in the United States. However, lately the use of this tactic, especially in New York, has raised the questions of whether or not these stop and frisks are actually helping as well as the question of whether or not these supposed random stops are unbiased. There have been a great number of arguments for the continuation of stop and frisk policies as well as the

Stop and frisking is where officers are able to come up to you if they have reasonable suspicion of someone that might be hiding something illegal. There are no set parameters that have to be made for them to stop someone, allowing them to go up to anyone, anywhere, at any time and search them for illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia along with unregistered guns. When reasonable suspicion is brought into this it just makes it all a mess. Even though there are specific things that someone need to

the continuation of the practice, many Americans have begun to fear going out on the streets, in risk of encountering a police officer. On many social media sites, there are public videos of these encounters where police brutality is present during frisking. Many people, including myself, that watch these videos feel angry and embarrassed that in our world this is happening. Something needs to be done to stop this. Starting with the Floyd vs. City of New York court case, the judge, Shira Scheindlin

Fourth Amendment Paper Assignment Today, I am presented with a case that puts in question the violation of individual’s Fourth Amendment rights. This case also puts in question the rights of the authority placed in our streets, neighborhoods and towns to perform actions directed towards certain citizens in an effort to serve and protect the overall population. There must be a careful analysis in order to interpret the records of the incident that occurred to conclude who holds the most justified

When it comes to stop-and-frisk and Terry Stop, can be both good thing and bad thing for our country. The good is if officer take there time and observe we can help prevent a lot of crime. On the downside, these officers mostly target African American and Hispanic males. Stop-and- frisk takes place when an officer feels it’s some type of suspicion about a citizen, they then stop you and frisk if they feel is necessary. But not all of those stop and frisk are good, the statistics in New York show

The New York City Police Department has conducted an extreme amount of stops, amounting to half a million because of suspected criminal involvement. The NYPD noticed a large amount of stops and decided to turn to RAND, an organization for research and development issues, to determine issues with their stops. RAND researchers conducted three types of analysis including external benchmarking, internal benchmarking, and how the outcome of stops differed from other stops. The first to be researched,

Patrol officers spend numerous hours a day patrolling the streets; many of these hours are used executing the Stop and Frisk Policy. The Stop and Frisk Policy has caused a lot of controversy nationwide. Recently there have been many cases where the Stop and Frisk Policy has resulted in the death of an unarmed individual, typically an African American male. On July 17, 2014, Eric Gardner died while being arrested for selling individual cigarettes. The police used the Stop and Frisk Policy because

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right

whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon

Stop and frisk. One of the most controversial issues of today's society. This dates back all the way to 1967 with the case Terry v Ohio. In this case, an officer by the name of Martin Mcfadden, patrolling his surrounding area, noticed two African American men acting “suspiciously” in front of a store on a street corner at 1276 Euclid Avenue. Mcfadden described the men to be alternately walking back and forth and conversing while taking breaks in between. He also stated that the two men later met