Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
1
Article Critique
Robert Rosensteel
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
Abstract
This article critique is being conducted to review two peer-review articles in reference to the
dual-court system and roles of courtroom workgroups. The specific topic of this critique is
focusing on case law in general and the decisions of the Supreme Court. These two things are
some of the most essential information that officers must maintain a working knowledge of. We
will dive into two specific case laws that are crucial to law enforcement, Terry v Ohio and
Miranda v Arizona.
Keywords: Case law, Supreme Court, decisions
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
2
Article Critique
Case Law is incredibly important in law enforcement. Simply put, it is some of the most
important pieces of literature for law enforcement officers. Case Law comes from decisions
made by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest level of courts that
we have here in the United States and their decisions directly affect everyone within the law
enforcement community. This is important for officers to stay on top of because the decisions
made by the Justices often dictates what officers can or cannot do in real world situations that
they may deal with on a daily basis. A few examples of what the Supreme Court has ruled on are
things such as searches and seizures, Miranda Rights, etc. When people think of case law
referencing searches and seizures or the 4th Amendment as a whole, there are a few major ones
that stand out in people’s memories. This is because these are the ones that officers deal with
on a daily basis. Some of these include Terry v Ohio, Katz v United States, and Carroll v United
States. These cases focus more on the Fourth Amendment which is the protection from
unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
Article 1-Background
The first article that I utilized for the purposes of this critique was, Stop and Frisk is
Essential and Requires Restraint, written by Greg Ridgeway. This article focuses on the case law
of Terry v Ohio. This was a very important decision made by the Supreme Court. This case was
an incredibly major decision pertaining to searches and seizures. Officers were on routine patrol
and observed two men looking into a businesses’ windows. The men were pacing in front of the
business and periodically peering into the windows. The officer decided to make contact with
the suspects based on the fact that he believed they may be getting ready to rob the business.
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
3
Upon doing so, the officer located a firearm on each suspect and subsequently placed them
under
arrest. Put simply, the outcome of this case was that officers are allowed to temporarily stop a
person if they can articulate reasonable suspicion that the individual has, will, or currently is
involved in criminal activity. Once stopped, the officer may frisk, not search, the subject as long
as they can articulate why they believe they may be armed. Ridgeway states, “Stop-and-frisk is a
policing tactic in which officers briefly stop suspicious individuals to determine whether they are
criminally involved and if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has a weapon”
(Ridgeway, 2017). The big thing to remember with a “Terry Frisk” is that it is just that, a frisk. It
is importation to remember that the scope of the initial frisk is just outside the clothing feeling
the entirety of the body. However, if while doing that frisk you feel something that you can
articulate is a weapon or could be a weapon, then you can initiate a full search. The purpose of
this frisk is to locate weapons and keep the officer and the subject safe.
Once the article specifies what the overall case was about, Ridgeway further looks at
racial biases and these stops. Although this article is fairly old, this topic is very much pertinent
to today’s society. Racial conflicts consistently pop up in the media when speaking about law
enforcement with stops and uses of force. In order for Ridgeway to attempt to study this, he
utilized traffic stops because they were easier to track than personnel stops. Ridgeway then
explains the research itself and the formulas they use to determine statistics. After concluding
his study, Ridgeway states “on several issues, I agree with the stop-and-frisk critics. Black and
Hispanic pedestrians bore the greatest burden of stop-and-frisk. For numerous stops and frisks
reasonable suspicion was questionable. Stop-and-frisk generated police-community friction in
neighborhoods where police needed community cooperation the most” (Ridgway, 2017). This
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
4
information further shows that this information is pertinent to today’s society. This is one of the
biggest arguments in today’s society of policing. This research is very important and is
absolutely needed however, we must be careful in how we conduct the research. We also must
be careful as a society on the conclusions that we draw from these studies.
Article 1 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
I think that this article could be mostly considered a strength in general. This article was
very professionally written and was very explanatory when it comes to the research that was
conducted by Ridgeway. I believe that one of the strengths of the article was exactly that.
Ridgeway did a fantastic job at explaining how he obtained the information that he got by way
of his research. Ridgeway states, “internal benchmarking is an alternative that compares the
race distribution of an officer’s stops to the race distribution of stops made by other officers in
similar times, places, and contacts” (Ridgeway, 2017). I believe it is especially important for
authors to explain to their readers how they got to the outcome of their research. Telling
readers how they conducted their study allows for the reader to have an understanding of what
happened and they will typically know after reading this if they trust the information or not.
This is important because if this is not explained they may stop reading at this point and will just
disregard the information pushed out by the author.
The second strength that I found with this article was that Ridgway does a phenomenal
job laying out why he conducts his research. The reason I say this is because Ridgeway goes into
great depth about why he feels it is important to conduct this research. He states, “after 2003
many stops did not meet the reasonable suspicion standard and that police targeted individuals
based on race. US District Court Judge Shara Scheindlin oversaw the settlement, requiring the
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
5
NYPD to make policy changes, conduct audits, update training and modify the stop data
collection form” (Ridgway, 2017). Ridgeway lays out this information so that the reader knows
early on why he conducts the research that he does and why he published this information. It is
important for readers to have an idea of the problems that are going on and the reasons why
the research is being conducted. Without this information, readers may be more likely to move
on and not read the rest of the research whether it is good or bad information.
Weaknesses
The first and biggest weakness that I found with this article was that the scope of the
research is very limited. The scope of the research is based solely on NYPD however, upon
speaking during his conclusion it almost sounds as though he is lumping all law enforcement
officers in with the NYPD officers. This could be detrimental to officers throughout the country
because they run the risk of being labeled a racist or that they discriminate against certain types
of people while doing their jobs. This is why there is a huge divide in certain parts of the country
between law enforcement and civilians. Studies like this, while they have a place, if not properly
read can be detrimental to all officers. One statement made by Ridgeway that made this evident
was, “policing needs a policy innovation that can implement a dial, slowly increasing stop-
andfrisk to the point where the community is comfortable with both the ever of stops and
frisks, satisfied with the police investigating suspicious activity, and tolerant of the level of false
positives” (Ridgeway, 2017). In my opinion, to someone that is reading this article, this could
come off as stating this about all law enforcement officers and agencies. This is not fair if that is
the case because not all agencies have this problem and if one of those agencies gets lumped
into that group then they get the same bad reputation. We as a society just have to be careful
about lumping people into large groups.
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
6
The second weakness that I found within this article was that Ridgeway sometimes
utilizes a large quantity of words that the average individual may not understand or
comprehend.
I don’t believe the purpose of this was to insult the integrity of the reader. I believe that with
Ridgeway, he just utilized words that he frequently utilizes, and they may just be words that the
average individual doesn’t use or understand. What researchers must realize or remember is
that not everyone has the same amount of education as them. This was very evident when
Ridgeway was specifically referring to things in his research. Utilizing layman’s terms to explain
their information would be very beneficial to researchers in order to keep people invested in
their works.
Article 2 – Background
The second article that I utilized for the purposes of this critique was Miranda 2.0,
written by Tonja Jacobi. The reason that I chose this article is because it covers another case law
that is incredibly important to law enforcement officers. The case that this article covers is
Miranda v Arizona. This case law is where Miranda Warnings/Rights came from. This was
created to ensure the suspect was protected from violating his or her 5th Amendment Right to
be protected from self incrimination. Advising suspects of their Miranda Rights also protects law
enforcement officers from being accused of coercing a confession from the suspect. Miranda
Rights were created in the 1960s as a way to protect law enforcement and the suspect
themselves. This was showcased when Jacobi stated, “in 1966, Miranda v Arizona announced a
new era of constitutional arrest procedures designed to safeguard individual rights and restrain
police coercion” (Jacobi, 2016).
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
7
This case determined that the suspect must be advised of several things. Those things
are their right to remain silent, the fact that what they tell you can and will be used against
them, they have the right to an attorney, they have the right to have an attorney present while
their being questioned, and they have the right to have an attorney appointed if they can not
afford one. These things are required to be told to the suspect by the officer in the event of
custodial interrogation. The easiest way for officers to remember this is, if the suspect is not
free to leave and they are being asked incriminating questions, they must be advised of their
Miranda Rights.
Article 2 - Critique of Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article
Strengths
I believe much like the first article I utilized; this article was very professionally written
and informative. One major strength that I found while reading through the article was that
throughout the article, where Jacobi felt a change was necessary she provided a solution that
she believed would fix the problem. This is very important because if someone is reading this
article and all they see is a writer that is just listing all of the problems but no solutions, they are
going to see it as solely complaining and lose interest quickly. If you as the writer are going to
present issues then you must be willing to also list some solutions to those issues and present
them to the readers. This is evident when Jacobi makes statements such as “fortunately, the
two steps necessary when weighing options to reform Miranda-fitting within the political-legal
reality of likely Supreme Court response, and ost effectively addressing the central concern of
preventing false confessions-largely point in the same direction. The best way to realistically
prevent false confessions is not to limit all interrogations, but rather to target the circumstances
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
8
most likely to lead to false confessions” (Jacobi, 2016). This statement shows that she is
presenting a solution to the “problem” that she presents.
The second strength that I noted was that she begins speaking about how she believes
that interrogations/interviews should be recorded. Jacobi states, “cheap technology could
considerably improve police transparency, at little cost. Recordings can be very advantageous to
the police, helping prove both that they refrained from any coercive activity, and that they
properly administered Miranda warnings” (Jacobi, 2016). I couldn’t agree with this statement
more! I too believe that all interrogations/interviews should be recorded. I believe that if you
polled every law enforcement officer in the country, they would more than likely say the same
thing. One of the biggest reasons I agree is because of one of the statements she says. When
she references officers being exonerated from complaints that they didn’t administer Miranda
Rights or that they forced suspects to confess, having the interaction on video allows this to be
dispelled. Another big benefit to recording the interview would be that the officer can go back
and review the video and ensure they didn’t miss anything during the initial interview. This is
vital because at some point during the interview you are bound to miss something that the
suspect says or how they say it. Being able to go back and watch the video again will allow you
to pick up on those things because you can pause and rewind video to re-watch it.
Weaknesses
One major weakness that I observed while reading through this article was that at times
it seems that Jacobi is writing out of a matter of opinion rather than a matter of fact. One of the
statements made in the article that made me feel this way was when she stated, “the Miranda
Court recognized that ritualized strong-arming by police was waning, but the Court was
concerned that this practice had been replaced with the psychological coercion of isolation”
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
9
(Jacobi, 2016). This statement is a very strong statement that is intended to grab the readers
attention and persuade them into feeling the same way as the writer. This statement however
was not backed up by any statistic or quotation of fact. Thus, I have an issue with utilizing such
strong verbiage when addressing such an important and strong topic.
The second weakness that I observed while reading this article was later in the article
when Jacobi was referencing what she would change about the Miranda Rights. She states, “if it
is demonstrably apparent that a given suspect knows his rights, then any lack of warning should
have no coercive effect. Likewise, if the suspect is incapable of understanding even a
procedurally sound recitation of those rights, providing a warning has no protective effect”
(Jacobi, 2016). Jacobi goes on to explain that she believes that officers should be made to have
a Part II to Miranda. This would be for those that officers deem to be more vulnerable to not
understanding their rights. I have a large problem with this because officers already have a ton
of information to process and a lot of different things that they are doing at one time. They also
go through a ton of training within their career field to ensure they are adequately prepared to
handle this type of thing. However, what they are not trained to do is establish someone’s
mental capacity. Officers can not make that determination nor should they be asked to. This
becomes a slippery slope, and one officers have no business being involved in. This is why the
court system made it universal across the board in the first place. I say this because if you are
being asked self incriminating questions and you are not free to go you must be advised of
these rights. If the suspect advises that they do not understand these rights or they do not give
you a firm yes to the questions, then you automatically stop with the interview or interrogation
and that’s the end of it.
Summary of Articles
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
10
I thoroughly enjoyed reading both articles for this assignment. I think that both articles
were very informative on their respective topics and were incredibly well written. Each author
was very efficient and able to get their perspective to the reader without sounding too
overbearing. The first article was informative and something that furthered my knowledge on
the topic. However, the second article was much different to me because it showed me a
different perspective than the one that I currently hold. It is my belief that reading other
people’s opinions that don’t line up with your own is good for you as it allows you to get an
understanding of another option. Although I don’t necessarily agree with the majority of the
second article it was still something that I was able to learn from because it gives me a different
perspective whether I agree with it or not. I believe this assignment could be very beneficial for
a law enforcement officer because not only do you learn things that may further your
knowledge on a topic but it also allows you to learn new things that you may not already know.
Case Law is some of the most important information that officers must keep track of. The
Supreme Court gives opinions quite often and law enforcement officers must ensure they stay
on top of that information or they will not know how to handle certain situations as they unfold
in front of them.
Conclusion: Personal Reflection, Position, and Christian Worldview I noticed that
as I read through these two articles, I was reminded that the topics we discuss in law are often
referenced in the Bible. For example, in Proverbs 17:15 the Bible states, “he who justifies the
wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord” (NLT
1996/2015,Proverbs 17:15). What I took away from the scripture is that we must ensure that
the guilty are prosecuted and that the guilty are exonerated. We can not stand for those that
are guilty and we must ensure that we protect the innocent. We also learn throughout the Bible
Article Critique on the Dual-Court System and Roles of Courtroom Workgroups
11
that we must be honest in all aspects of our life. That is very similar to the two topics that I
referenced in this assignment because especially in the second article we discuss coercion and
how we must stay away from it.
References
Ridgeway, G. (2017). Stop-and-Frisk Is Essential and Requires Restraint. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 36(3), 683-689. http://doi.org/10/1002/pam.21990
Jacobi, T. (2016). Emory University School of Law Emory University School of Law. Miranda
2.0. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1030&context=faculty-articles
