Public Safety Outweigh Petitioner 's First Amendment Right

North Carolina, the concurrence states, “If the statue is genuinely ambiguous, such that overturning the officer’s judgement requires hard interpretive work, then the officer has made a reasonable mistake.” Based on this statement, it gives us support to consider whether Officer Raymond’s stop was objectively reasonable or not. Also, The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of 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 secured, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Police officers pull drivers over for a number of reasons, ranging from driving recklessly to suspicion of possessing illegal substances. Traffic stops pose stress onto police officers because of its hazards. First, police officers risk the chance of getting hit by incoming traffic. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, over 150 U.S. Law enforcement officers were killed since 1999 by getting struck by vehicles along America's highways (National Safety Commission, 2012). When a police officer pulls over a driver, he or she is focused on documenting information on the incident report, leaving him or her open to the risk of getting hit by incoming vehicles.

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.

The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

Defendant, Preston G. Holmes, III and Matthew D. Jones, by and through counsel, Vernida R. Chaney and Eugene Gorokhov, and respectfully move this Honorable Court to exclude inadmissible hearsay evidence that the government may seek to introduce at trial. Specifically, the defendants move to exclude the records and contents thereof (1) U-Haul, (2) Sharifa Shuler’s cellphone, (3) automatic license plate reader, and (4) gun manufacturers.

My support: In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, the court determined that officers can order any occupant out of the vehicle during any traffic stop ... so long as the officer has reasonable cause to feel that his or her safety could be at risk. (e.g. officer thinks there's a gun in the car). The courts' decision here is a direct result of concern for the safety of law enforcers.

The Supreme Court has stated that the calculus of the propriety of an officer’s use of force must include the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second decisions in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. Officers who use force in the street are judged under the Objective Reasonableness

Following through the process of the criminal justice system, after being stopped by police officers, many individuals remain innocent of committing any crime and walk away from the situation without further questions asked. However, at this point, silence is not the answer. Alexander notes regarding the unreasonable searches, “Hardly anyone files a complaint, because the last thing most people want to do after experiencing a frightening and intrusive encounter with the police is show up at the police station where the officer works and attract more attention to themselves” (Alexander 69). Therefore, these countless searches remain unheard of by many because the innocent are too scared to come forward and tell their stories. Perhaps if the silence is broken, word of mouth would prevent others from being unlawfully searched and arrested based on no suspicion. This is not the case though; nevertheless, it is known that “the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) trains police to conduct utterly unreasonable and discriminatory stops and searches” (Alexander 70). The use of such searches and methods to determine whom

In the 1990s, the growth of violent crime reached its all-time high. In reply to the number of high murder rates in 1990, the New York City Police Department realized that whatever they are doing to reduce violent was not working. The local news reported that New Yorkers were afraid to wear their jewelry in public. Some New Yorkers reported that they sprint to the subway exit to avoid victimization when the door opened. The New York City Police Department decided to implement a practice of Stop, Question, and Frisk. This law became to know as the Stop -and- Frisk (Bellin, 2014). Stop-and Frisk” was a method that was implemented by the New York City Police Department in which an officer stops a pedestrian and asked them a question, and then frisks them for any weapon or contraband (Rengifo & Slocum, 2016). By the last 1990, Stop-and Frisk became a common practice implemented by New York City Police Department (Bellin, 2014).

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

They Supreme Court found that alternative 1 and 2 were unacceptable. Alternative 1 did not apply at all to street encounters and that people on the street are then subject to what and who ever any officer felt like. Alternative 2 was not in the best interest of the officer and if the officer could not take any action until they had probable cause their crime control would suffer and they may never see the suspects again.

The consequences presented in Terry vs. Ohio were put forth but examination of the “reasonable balancing test.” By doing so, a balancing test that has a wider variety of causes is now in effect. In this landmark case, it was held that policemen are permitted to perform a “stop and frisk” pat down, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is presently dangerous and carrying a deadly weapon. This “stop and frisk” method was later extended to vehicle arrests as well.

Supreme Court's verdict on pretext traffic stops in Whren v. United States, racial hostility between white law enforcement and African American citizens is as insidious as ever. Statistics of unarmed African American men killed by police officers are seemingly alarmingly universally. In spite of the national quarrel against discrimination by police officers, the U.S. Supreme Court has lately made a choice that will expand police judgment. The fickle political background that sets the matter of “racial profiling” has directed local and state police agencies across the nation to start collecting information about traffic and pedestrian stops (Engel et al., Vol. 19, 2002). The disagreement over this topic is plagued by the uncorroborated notion that all race-based judgment by law enforcement is motivated by the type of person the police officers' are. Potential profiling would further show the role of how the agency has an influence on how the police officers distribute traffic violations as pretext. To further show the connection among civilians and police

Immemorial, governments and individual citizens have had to walk a thin tightrope between the two ideals. This controversy was the catalyst that sparked the first ten amendments of the Constitution that we know as the Bill of Rights and, how in addition to these rights secured by America's forefathers, a number of institutions have arisen to ensure the protection of individual rights in an increasingly complex world. In order to add balance to this equation, the criminal

or she did not nee to record it. If the Government do succeed in the