What Cases Are Police Stops and Frisks Appropriate in - Essay Example

Stops and Frisks Introduction Police stop involves a less invasive arrest of an individual whereas a frisk entails a restricted search on an individual stopped by the law enforcing officers. Law enforcement officers carry out stops by temporary detaining and questioning the stopped individual on grounds of reasonable suspicion, which is often less than apparent cause of criminal activities. This is to prevent crime and carry out investigations. This paper examines the stops and frisks, and the legal foundations in the practices. The Standards of Stops and Frisks In the United States, stops, just like frisks, are governed by the legal principles contained in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment permits the law enforcement officers to protect themselves and the public against the suspected criminals in the event that they suspect probable criminal activity. The police officers can carry out the stops even when an apparent cause for arrest does not exist. It is regarded as unreasonable for a legal authority or person to deny a law enforcement officer the power and the right to take necessary actions to ascertain whether or not a suspected individual is armed. These steps taken by the police officers are important because they help the officers to neutralize the harm threat (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 295). Stops and frisks infringe on the privacy of individuals. In addition, these practices are administered under the guidance of the Constitution that hinders unreasonable searches and arrests. As a result, the practices of stops and frisks are weighed against a less strict standard than those applicable to arrests and searches. This is because stops have limited scope than arrests. Similarly, frisks are limited in scope compared to full searches (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 297). The challenge that the officers encounter during their practice is determining the reasonableness of the circumstance under which an individual should be stopped and frisked in the event that there is a lack of possible cause to arrest. The police officers, therefore, need to balance the competing interests entailed in the stops and frisks circumstances to determine the sensibleness of the situation. The common competing interests involved in such situations include the right of every citizen to privacy and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and arrests. The above-mentioned interests should be weighed against the interest of the government to effectively detect and prevent crimes besides protecting the law enforcers and other individuals from armed and dangerous people (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 297). The law enforcers need to evaluate whether any kind of police intrusion is justified or not by the prevailing circumstances and the extent to which the circumstances justify the interference as a method of balancing the competing interests namely, effective law enforcement and privacy of an individual. Furthermore, the police officers must weigh the seriousness of the public concern that the arrests serve and the level to which they promote public interest. The degree of the infringement on individual liberty is also imperative in determining the reasonableness of the stops and frisks (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 297). Criteria for Determining the Occurrence of Stops Stops are legally recognized in the United States if they are meant to investigate potential criminal activities. The law enforcement officers are permitted to stop persons, if it is necessary, in crime detection and prevention. Stops are considered as less invasive types of arrests under the Constitution. However, certain approaches may not be considered as arrests (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 297). In order for the judicial authorities to determine if the stops occurred under the provisions of the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution, the use of physical force or show of authority by the enforcement authorities must be proved. In situations in which the individuals are free to move but they did not leave, it is not considered that the officers enforced a stop order because it is part of their investigation functions. The force used on the individual must reveal that the police intended to restrict his or her movement. Eventually, it must be proved whether the physical force applied by the police officers resulted in the actual stopping of the confronted individuals. All the conditions highlighted must occur for a stop to be considered to have taken place within the limits of the Fourth Amendment (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 302). The Authority to Stop It is essential for the police officers to have the knowledge of when the authority to stop is permitted and justified. The authority and power to stop may be exercised only in circumstances in which the officer has reasonable standards of suspicion. The officer must also provide facts which can prove that the confronted individual wanted to commit a criminal activity. This is acceptable even if the officers lack probable cause because certainties are not involved in this process but only probabilities. The law enforcement officers apply their specialized training and experience to infer and deduce on the cumulative information availed to them (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 303). The police officers can stop individuals based on reasonable suspicion as an objective standard. The decision of the law enforcement officers to instigate stop on an individual is weighed against the available facts and information to the officer at the time of the stop to justify reasonable caution for the act. The totality of the prevailing circumstances may be different, thus, taken into account to determine a specific and objective foundation for suspecting criminal activity or legal wrongdoing (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 306). The reasonable suspicion that the officers are permitted to apply covers reasonable suspicion of past legal wrongdoings. This implies that the officers are not restricted to reasonable suspicions on activities yet to be committed or in the process of being committed but also in completed felony (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 306). On the other hand, an officer is not justified to progress with an investigation and stop an individual if the justification for the initial suspicion has ceased at the time of the intended stop. In such situations, the officers are expected to discontinue their investigations and avoid making a stop because of discontinued reasonable suspicion (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 307). In such a case, the intention and rationale for the intended stop has ended. Law enforcement officers may also derive the authority to execute stops from information obtained through police flyers, bulletins as well as radio dispatches. The lawbreakers are progressively mobile with the ability to escape across jurisdictional boundaries; thus, the officers in different jurisdiction can act on information obtained from their counterparts in other jurisdictions. The information obtained on the bulletins, flyers or radio dispatches from the other jurisdictions must contain information capable of meeting the standards of reasonable suspicion (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 310). The standard of reasonable suspicion is far less demanding than the standard of probable cause because it can be established with information different in content or quantity. Moreover, reasonable suspicion can arise from less reliable information than information needed to prove probable cause (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 311). Permissible Scope of a Stop The scope of violation of an individual’s rights permitted differs according to the facts and circumstances of every case. The officers are required to apply reasonable investigative methods during the stops. An enforcement officer may expand the stop to arrest if he or she possesses reasonable suspicion and the individual declines to identify him or herself, violating the law. The officers are permitted to apply objectively reasonable amount of force in making stops (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 318). Frisks are carried out with the view of protecting the law enforcement officers and other citizens from potential violence from people being investigated from criminal acts. Frisks are also carried out with a balance against the right to privacy of the citizens invaded through the officers’ right to frisk suspects (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 318). Scope for Frisk A protective search should always be restricted to pat down of the outer clothing of an individual. If it goes beyond the scope provided by the law, it is considered invalid and inadmissible (Bernat and Godlove 35). Upon detection of any weapon during the initial pat down, the officer has a right to carry out search inside the suspects clothing. Extended search after failure to identify any weapon is a violation of the citizen’s right. Particular Circumstances Justifying Stops and Frisks Several factors may contribute towards required reasonable suspicion to authorize officers to stop and frisk suspects. The most common factors include behavioral cues by the suspects. The behaviors that the suspect exhibits include flight and other forms of evasive behavior in addition to furtive gestures. The involvement and connection of a suspect with recognized criminals or a possession of previous criminal record may also influence stops and frisks. In the event that a suspect admits criminal conduct, an officer has the right to stop or frisk the suspect if reasonable suspicion exists. Evident cues like a bulge in the pocket of a criminal suspect may also influence stop and frisk. Other factors include presence of a suspect in a high crime area. If a suspect matches a description in a violent crime report, the officers have the authority to initiate stop and frisk (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten 328). Conclusion Law enforcement officers have the authority to stop individuals in the process of investigating potential criminal behavior even if the officers lack probable cause to arrest the suspect. Officers who engage in stops should be able to justify, using facts, the rationale of their act. Reasonable suspicion is weighed in totality and objectively, depending on the prevailing situation. Frisks are carried out with the view of protecting the law enforcement officers and citizens from possible violence from criminal suspects. Protective search is initially permitted on the outer clothing unless it can be justified beyond the restriction scope. Works Cited Bernat, Frances P., and Nicholas Godlove. Criminal Procedure Law: Police Issues and the Supreme Court. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012. Print. Ferdico, John N., Henry F. Fradella, and Christopher D. Totten. Criminal Procedure for the Criminal Justice Professional. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012. Print. Read More