Prof. Goodman ONLY !

Dsicussion 1 Responces

1. Jory

            Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in the United States that requires a “reasonable person” or “reasonable officer” the right to stop and frisk a suspicious person.  (Collica & Furst, 2012) The officer must be able to articulate clearly and concisely why they felt it just to frisk a person for weapons or other contraband items.  Officers work in a field that with time and experience and knowledge about certain areas, gives them the insight into what criminal activities occur, where they occur, and how they are carried out.  Constitutionally, officers that can support the reasons of the stop and frisk are legally protected under the law. 

            Those who oppose stop and frisk procedures argue that minorities, especially Blacks and Latinos are unfairly targeted through “stop and frisk” due to racial profiling.  Police routinely patrol areas that are saturated with drug and violent crime activity.  However, these areas are typically occupied by minorities which leads to the undeniable argument that minorities in this area are targeted on a more frequent basis by the police. (Center for Constitutional Rights , 2015) According to Heidi Grossman who was the lead attorney that defended the city during the 10-week Floyd v. City of New York trial stated in a recent National Public Radio interview that police cannot effectively do their job with new the implementation of new stop and frisk protocol and that some citizens living in these communities actually appreciate the police presence in these areas.  (MARTIN, 2013) 

            “Stop and Frisk” policies are constitutionally sound, and they allow law enforcement officers to head off crime before it happens.  Law enforcement officers are specialized in their line of work and can recognize signs and behaviors that ordinary citizens might miss.  As long as officers can defend their actions in an effective manner and do not have a history of racially targeting ethic groups then the policy is effective.  Using the heinous minority of officers that use this protocol as a means to discriminate is not grounds for discontinuing the policy all together.   

2.jeremy

The stop and frisk policy can have a positive side by providing safety for police. Terry v. Ohio gave police the ability to “pat down” a suspect in the name of public safety if the officer believes the suspect poses an immediate threat to safety (Ivers, 2013). This allows officers to protect themselves and others by doing a simple search for weapons or suspected items that may pose immediate danger. This allows police to protect against unlawful weapons or criminals as long as they see they pose a possible danger before the search.

Unfortunately the stop and frisk policy has just as much negative because it allows police to decide who is a threat and who is not. This places too much power in the hands of an individual and can be easily abused. The stop and frisk policy also circumvents the rights against search and seizure as it does not require a warrant. Without other authority the police may profile or target individuals that may show no sign of posing danger and use their own bias or personal beliefs to target people. It takes out the checks and balance to ensure that no one or group gains too much power.

I do feel that police need a certain amount of free reign but it should not be without checks and balance. Innocent people could be stopped because of bias or profiling because of this and that is what search and seizure amendment for I believe. I feel that we have slowly given up our rights and this is a prime example of how it starts into a domino effect.

Discussion 2 responces

tiffany