Stop and frisk rule and the Bill of Rights
The "stop and frisk" rule refers to a police practice that allows officers to temporarily detain a person and conduct a limited search for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. This practice has its roots in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. In the landmark case Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of stop and frisk, establishing that officers could act on reasonable, articulable suspicion, although the term itself remains informally defined.
While the rule aims to enhance public safety, particularly against potential threats, it has faced significant scrutiny and legal challenges. Critics argue that this practice has led to racial profiling and disproportionately targets minority communities, raising concerns about violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. A notable case in 2013 resulted in a federal ruling against New York City's stop-and-frisk policy, which mandated officers meet quotas for stops and arrests. Ongoing discussions around stop and frisk highlight the tension between ensuring public safety and protecting individual civil rights, making it a relevant and contentious issue in contemporary law enforcement practices.
Stop and frisk rule and the Bill of Rights
Description: The authority of the police, under certain circumstances, to approach and conduct an investigatory detention of a citizen and a limited search for weapons.
Relevant amendment: Fourth
Significance: In a 1968 case, the Supreme Court allowed police to use stop and frisk searches to investigate suspicious activity and to protect the safety of the public and themselves.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the police without a warrant. The Uniform Arrest Act of 1942 and some state statutes, including a New York law, allowed police officers to briefly detain a person for questioning if they suspected illegal activity and frisk them (run their hands over the outside of the suspect’s clothing) in search of a weapon.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court held that police officers can stop a person briefly for the purpose of investigation if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. The Court did not define the term “reasonable suspicion” but placed it somewhere between a vague suspicion and probable cause. The duration of the stop and frisk is limited to the amount of time necessary to either confirm or eliminate the officer’s suspicions about the suspect. The Court also stated that an officer may conduct a limited search or “pat down” of the suspect to ensure their safety and that of the public if they have reason to believe the suspect is armed and dangerous.
In 2013, a series of class action lawsuits were directed at various high officials of New York City. At issue was the constitutionality of New York's stop-and-frisk policies. Litigants maintained that New York's practice of requiring police officers to stop and frisk members of minority populations without probable suspicion of a crime constituted a violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Also at issue was the New York Police policy that compelled officers to perform a quota of stops, arrests, and monthly summons. In 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled against the city. After initially considering an appeal, city officials agreed to negotiate a settlement.
A 2022 incident involving two African American minors held at gunpoint by Arkansas police officers received national attention. This happened as the officers were reportedly searching for two Hispanic men. The dashcam mounted on the police car showed the two minors compliant, having displayed no suspicious activity or probable cause for the officers to apply handcuffs. A US District judge ruled against the officers in a subsequent lawsuit that alleged violation of Fourth Amendment protections. This ruling was later overturned by an Appeals Court which ruled the action did not constitute an arrest.
"Case Study: New York’s Stop-and-Frisk Policies." Catalysts for Collaboration, catalystsforcollaboration.org/case-study-floyd-v-city-of-new-york/. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.
"On This Day, a Win for 'Stop and Frisk.'" National Constitution Center, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/blog/this-week-in-supreme-court-history-a-win-for-stop-and-frisk. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.
"Search and Seizure." National Constitution Center, 2024, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-iv. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.
Wimer, Andrew. "The Supreme Court Needs to Stop the Expansion of “Stop and Frisk.” Forbes, 6 Jan. 2022, www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2022/01/05/the-supreme-court-needs-to-stop-the-expansion-of-stop-and-frisk. Accessed 3 Sept. 2024.