Article Critique 2
Briana Harris
Liberty University
Abstract
Cases are brought to the Supreme Court in order to review unconstitutional actions that
have occurred. The question of what remains constitutional and unconstitutional is the two
perspectives that the following articles represent. Three Amendments are reviewed between the
two articles. These amendments are the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and the
Fourteenth Amendments. They also discuss the relationship between the two Supreme Case laws
and how it impacts the police and civilians.
Article Critique 2
Supreme Court cases, such as the two that the following articles discuss, review incidents
that involved unconstitutional actions. The first article is by Tracey L. Meares who is a professor
at Yale Law School. The second article is by Edward A. Flynn who is the Chief of Police in
Milwaukie, Wisconsin. ”Programming Errors: Understanding the Constitutionality of Stop-and-
Frisk as a Program, Not an Incident”, and “Miranda and the Evolution of Policing” both discuss
Supreme Court cases focus on specific Amendments and relationship between the cases and
police reform.
Article 1-Background
In the Floyd vs. City of New York case, a stop-and-frisk as a police practice is shown as
opposed to the individual stop-and-frisk presented in Terry vs. Ohio. The author, Tracey L.
Meares discuses a review of the case Terry vs. Ohio as seen by the Supreme Court. She
compares the two cases and discusses if they are constitutional. In the article, “the scale of which
police today and historically engage in stop-and-frisk as a practice” (Meares, 2015, p 159). The
author specifically uses the case of Floyd vs. City of New York as evidence of current police
practice when it comes to stop-and-frisk. Unconstitutional practice was shown in the case as
well.
Violations of the Fourth and Fifteenth Amendments were also shown in the Floyd vs. City of
New York case. This article also discussed the feelings of those who experienced the stop-and-
frisk and how those individuals viewed the program because the “program is suspect driven, not
incident driven” (Meares, 2015, p 179).
Article 1 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
A strength that this article had was that the author provided an immense amount of
documentation about the two cases that they compared. Evidence was used in the Floyd case
in order to display the view of constitutionality as well. Another strength is that the author did
not show absolute disagreement with the Floyd case and was able to provide insight on
different perspectives. This allowed the reader to gain access to different views on the case and
the stop- and-frisk perspective.
Weaknesses
The Floyd case involves a large amount of incidents involving stop-and-frisk cases. This
can cause the reader to become overwhelmed with the amount of incidents that the case
involves. Due to this, a weakness occurred when comparing the Floyd and Terry case because
the Terry case did not involve the amount of incidents as the Floyd case does. Also, one case
was individual stop-and-frisk and the other was a federal class action lawsuit. This can also be
difficult for the reader to compare because they are on different levels.
Article 2-Background
Edward A. Flynn discussed how policing was viewed after the case, Miranda vs. Arizona
and the impacts were discovered. Edward Flynn discussed anecdotal evidence that he came
across. The validity of the evidence was shown based off of the examples and positions that were
held throughout the year. There is a list of several positions that Flynn discussed. These positions
included some such as: police recruits, Chief of police in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, and Virginia
(Flynn, 2016, p 114-118). In doing this, the author has a purpose of how policing practice has
changed throughout the years. He also discussed the issue of whether or not the Miranda’s
individual rights has “overshadowed notions of community and communal rights” as well as
how the guidance “help protect the whole society by focusing on individual rights of both
offenders and victims” (Flynn, 2016, p. 102).
Article 2 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
By providing a large amount of anecdotal evidence for the reader, the author gave the
reader a strong insight and perspective on the impact of the Miranda vs. Arizona case and how it
impacted police practice and reform. Another strength is the amount of personal and expert
testimonies that the author gave in order to persuade the reader. This helped the author to
provide a comparison for the reader.
Weaknesses
One weakness is that the author did make direct comparisons to their examples and the
case of Miranda vs. Arizona and the stages that they had in common. Having a direct
comparison and direct examples between the two would have provided the reader with deeper
insight on the cases.
Summary of Articles
Both articles provided effectual reviews of two historical Supreme Court cases and the
impact that those cases had on police reform. They both compared the cases that they discussed
with other cases and examples to allow the reader to have the chance to make decisions on their
own about how they felt. While both cases were different and had different studies, they both had
a common interest. This interest was to show the impact of the Supreme Court decision with the
Amendments shown in each case.
Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview
I enjoyed reading the article on each of the cases that the authors provided information
about. When it comes to reading about the different cases, it is important for authors to give
readers other examples to compare and contrast to the case that they are defending or opposing.
Both authors did a great job on doing this. It allowed me as the reader to see their point as well
as other points. They gave great evidence and examples for each case and point as well. From a
Christian worldview, specifically with stop-and-frisk cases, it is pertinent to think logically and
use personal values as a police officer to avoid a case ending up in the Supreme Court.
Colossians 3: 17 states, “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of
the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (New International Version).
References
Flynn, Edward A (2016). Miranda and the evolution of policing, Miranda and the Evolution
of Policing, 10, p 101-120.
Meares, Tracey (2015). Programming errors: understanding the constitutionality of stop-
and- frisk as a program, not an incident, Yale Law School Legal Scholarship
Repository, p 159-179.
