Stop and Frisk
Abstract
Law enforcement with particular emphasis on police officers carries out stop and frisk procedures. Crime prevention involves identifying potential suspects capable of committing illegal actions. Deterring efforts include stop and frisk procedures whose aim is to get rid of contraband in possession of an individual. Items such as guns and knives are not only a danger to the public but the police officer in charge as well. Despite the legitimate reasoning and lawful backing, people may feel that rights to personal property are in infringement. Various issues come into focus concerning the constitutionality of the process. Matters relating to the stop and frisk process, such as impediments to a lawful process, are also outlined. Problems discussed include law enforcement misconduct, such as harassment and brutality. Racial profiling comes into perspective, and it constitutes stop scenarios that are biased and not based on suspicion or probable cause. Various factors contribute to racial profiling and police misconduct, which are in the discussion. The role of the broader justice system, such as courts and ways that it can improve the process, is also put into perspective. There is also a debate on whether police should frisk individuals. Proponents of the discussion indicate that officers should either question and let go of a suspect or make an arrest if there is ground for probable cause. Those against the debate suggest that the protocol is necessary. The outlined matter is part of the discussion and argues against eliminating police search. Stop and frisk is, therefore, a controversial issue in the U.S. due to loopholes in the law enforcement system and a more extensive criminal justice system.
Stop and Frisk
Introduction
The law exists for the sake of protecting the public and punishing wrongdoers. The facts notwithstanding, there are instances where the code is not clear on specific issues resulting in the infringement of citizen rights. Stop and frisk involve police officers stopping and questioning people to verify some issues. These could include information concerning name, personal address, the reason for being at a particular location, to name a few. Such routine stops often take place for security and law enforcement reasons. For example, in an instance where an attack takes place, stop and frisk procedures are likely to happen. The action would be to reduce the likelihood of a repeat attack and identify any suspects. The exercise could be for a definite or indefinite period. In this case, the reason behind the process would involve safety reasons and would be in place with backing from Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (Parpworth, 1967, p.92).
Background
The criminal justice system is not devoid of flaws that affect the stop and frisk procedure. Frisking should be short, and it involves a pat-down by a police officer. However, the process sometimes requires more than a frisk, and it may result in a search, detention, and subsequent arrest. Reasonable suspicion, as inferred earlier, is ground for frisking. The procedure involves asking questions that the officer deems pertinent to the situation at hand. Details such as ID and reasons for being at a particular location are essential. The answers given to these questions determine the next action. If the answers are questionable, then the police officer can further probe the suspect, and if there appears to be loopholes, an arrest or detention becomes a possible option. The outcome of a stop and frisk exercise considerably depends on various issues that take place during and after the process (Inbau & Thomson, 1968, p.334). Legitimacy and unlawfulness of the process ride on multiple factors such as police execution of the constitution or lack thereof. There exists an argument that police should not invoke a stop and frisk protocol but should instead arrest or let go of a suspect without taking any action (Younger, 1967, p.291).
The Issue
Police Misconduct
Misconduct refers to issues such as the use of unnecessary force during a stop and frisk situation. Though the procedure is legal under U.S. law, the very same law protects citizens and, in this case, looks out for the suspect. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unlawful searches and seizures of property and persons. Force is excessive when a suspect does not resist. In a stop and frisk scenario, the unnecessary force could include pinning the suspect to the ground or punching. It is not possible to frisk a suspect without stopping. Brutality can occur during the stop process. For example, an officer can run after a suspect, wrestle to the ground, and use the gun butt to subdue the suspect. Though wrestling could be necessary because the suspect is running away, the punching would result in excessive use of force. The use of force could result in the dismissal of a court case or an outcome that is less preferred. Some officers deliberately harass suspects, but some take unlawful action mistakenly, hence classifying all police officers as a rogue would be incorrect. The classification should be on a case-by-case basis and not on a blanket conclusion.
The frisk procedure can also entail brutal force whereby the protocol is demeaning. There are instances of police officers frisking suspects in a sexual manner. Male law enforcers take advantage of the frisk exercise to sexually abuse female suspects through inappropriate touching. Threats may be in use to instill fear in the suspects who do not report the incidences. Planting of evidence also takes place in frisk procedures. Weapons such as knives and guns are standard in such exercises. A rogue officer could place a knife in the suspect’s pocket when probable cause and suspicion grounds lack. A frisk approach could turn into a search action if the suspicion is still evident. A suspect whose answers fail to match the line of questioning is likely to dictate further series of steps. Searches following a suspect’s responses are more detailed and entail looking more into the suspect’s property, such as a car or bag. Misconduct takes place when an officer searches without probable cause. Placing evidence in a suspect’s personal property is tantamount to malpractice.
Reasons for Misconduct.
There are various reasons why unprofessional behavior takes place within the police force. The lack of action by the disciplinary body is one of the significant reasons unethical behavior is standard. Consequences are necessary for dealing with any form of lawlessness. When the police disregard action, the rate of indiscipline within the force escalates. The public’s lack of faith in the police translates to victims of police abuse, not reporting abuse scenarios. Failure to inform the system of such grievances means that more police officers abuse the same citizens that should be protected. Corruption equally contributes to unethical law enforcement behavior. Monetary payment is a common practice that encourages the use of money to reward officers for the wrongful arrest of individuals. The arrest has to start with a simple stop and frisk procedure, which then escalates to a search and subsequent detention and arrest.
Racial Profiling
Racial profiling involves stop and frisk action based on race. African Americans and Hispanics are mainly victims of bias (Ridgeway, n.d, p.688). Racial discrimination is a contentious issue in the U.S. and flourishes at various societal levels, including the justice system. In a discrimination case, police officers stop and frisk minority group suspects without probable cause. Suspicion leading to the action is on the color of the person as opposed to suspicious activity. For example, a Hispanic man could undergo frisking on the assumption that the individual is carrying drugs. The stop action would thus not be as a result of questionable activity.
In a situation where no drugs exist on the suspect, a search in the car could ensue. An assumption that a Hispanic man must be carrying drugs would necessitate further searching with the anticipation of a consequent drug charge. If the suspect does not have any illegal possession, a rogue officer plants evidence. In a case where proof lacks, there is a likelihood of harassment and brutality during the process. African Americans suffer harassment by police officers who see a nonexistent threat. Just as a Hispanic is assumed to carry drugs, a black man is likely to possess a firearm, and the same scenario applies to blacks in the stop and frisk procedure execution. It is not surprising that cases of white police officers gunning down unarmed African Americas or using excessive force are incredibly familiar.
Racial profiling blocks transparency and the provision of due process in a case. Due to the increased stop, search, and arrest minority cases, the correctional system has a higher rate of blacks in jail than whites. More than half the number of people stopped are African Americans, according to statistics (Parpworth, 2014, p.98). Other issues, such as legal representation challenges, contribute to the lack of due process. Discrimination does involve not only the stop and frisk process but also the subsequent arrest process. The bias goes beyond the police force and is present in the court system as well. It means that the racial profiling issue is a broader challenge that requires dealing with at a societal level. The public is not devoid of racial bias and contributes to the police profiling menace. A white person is more likely to view a black man as a threat in any setting, be it the local grocery store, train station, or shopping mall. A stop and frisk action is in such locations is more likely to target minority groups.
Reasons for Racial Profiling.
Racial profiling stems from societal influences that deem minority groups as inferior. These groups include Hispanic and African Americans. A superiority complex exists among whites since the slavery era. It is unfortunate that many years after emancipation, the vice still exists. Civil liberties, which are the backbone of freedom from the slave movement, are the very liberties trumped by discrimination. Though segregation takes place in different settings such as schools and workplaces, law enforcement, in particular, the police force is significantly discriminatory. Revenge is also another reason for racial profiling. A situation where a black suspect kills a white police officer is likely to result in retribution. The police officers may avenge the colleague’s death by arresting black suspects indiscriminately to prove a point. It is vital to bring into focus the fact that there are various reasons why blacks are more likely to commit crimes. However, not all black people commit crimes regardless of the prevailing family, social, or economic situation. A blanket perspective of the issue contributes to racial profiling and subsequently increased stop, search, and arrest scenarios.
Role Played by the Criminal Justice System
The judicial system plays a significant role in stopping suspects. The judiciary is responsible for laying laws that stipulate how such processes are in use. Unclear rules exacerbate the problem by bringing about confusion as to the situations that warrant a search scenario without the infringement of rights. It means that the courts should engage the public and law enforcement on the legality of searches. A stop can be legal but have an illegal search outcome. A search that is without probable cause is equivalent to inadmissibility. The arresting officer must let the suspect know the grounds for suspicion or probable cause for a search and subsequent holding action. Situations, where the police officer is not clear about the grounds for arrest, could result in challenges during the court process. The Fourth Amendment protects people against unlawful search and seizure methods by ensuring probable cause. The justice system should equally deal with police officers who flaunt these requisites as such action goes against constitutional requirements. The Fifth Amendment, which focuses on rights to liberty and due process, comes into perspective when a suspect is in detention for an indefinite period.
A suspect should be in police custody or detention for a specified period to ascertain suspicion. The holding officers have to let go of the individual if further questioning does not yield any substantive result. The due process applies to not only detention but also jail term while awaiting trial. The court should ensure that individual rights are not overlooked. It is important to note that rights apply to innocent people as well as suspects. Flaws in a stop and frisk or search plan could result in the wrongful detention or arrest of innocent individuals. Detention does not include booking or entry into police records (Stern, 1967, p.533). Suspect arrest, on the other hand, includes being in police records, which negatively impacts a person’s image. Getting a person into such a history when it is not necessary is an infringement of personal liberties.
Justification
Stop and frisk procedures are essential to maintaining law and order and protecting the public from crime. With the increase in organized crimes, such as gun trafficking and terrorism, stop and frisk strategies become inevitable. The police force mandate is preventing crime and arresting criminals responsible for existing criminal actions. The procedure acts as a preventative measure as it identifies individuals that officers deem as suspicious. Frisking is meant to confiscate any unlawful items in a suspect’s possession, which causes illegal actions. As such, it is not viable to argue that a stop and frisk process should not occur as it infringes on civil liberties as envisioned by the Fourth Amendment. The police cannot carry out the preventative mandate by automatically arresting or letting go of a suspect without a search.
There are many instances when frisking unveils reasonable grounds for further search and arrest. Such an action would be impossible without frisking and would probably result in potential suspects walking away undetected. In this case, a crime that has a likelihood of containment would have the leeway for full implementation. Therefore, the point of focus should not be the necessity of stop and frisk plans but the lawfulness of the execution process. The action itself does not infringe on civil rights. The flawed and unlawful conduct of the process makes it an infringement (Parpworth, 2014, p.93). Focusing on a process that is lawful (through police ethical practice and clear outlines of the law) should be the focus.
Personal Opinion
Stop and frisk is not an abuse of personal rights as it is part of a broader security measure. Loopholes in the law enforcement department and the entire criminal justice system, as well as police misconduct, are to blame for the abuse of civil rights. Doing away with the protocol would further jeopardize national security. A debate on whether police officers should stop and search individuals is not sensible. Officers are more likely to arrest innocent civilians based on suspicion devoid of proof. Frisking gives evidence of intent to commit crime by unveiling contraband carried by a suspect. Eliminating the process would mean that people in possession of illegal items go scot free because searching would not take place. The debate should in light of these possibilities focus on carrying out stop and frisk protocols in a lawful manner that endears civil liberties.
Conclusion
Any objects that can cause harm or injury are in the weapon category. In a street frisk procedure, the officer carries out the exercise to eliminate any potential threat or danger. A frisk is a precautionary for security purposes while a search is more detailed and entails probable cause and reason for suspicion (Stern, 1967, p.533). It is important to note that there is a difference between a search and a frisk. A frisk involves a simple pat-down whose intention is to look for any weapons or unlawful items. The procedure is simple and should not be the subject of complication. A legitimate frisk should result in a full search if there is a reason to further the process. Inconsistencies in the questioning can legally result in an arrest whereby the suspect is booked for further interrogation under police custody. It is important to note that detention does not automatically result in an arrest.
The importance of a search process needs better articulation through a lawful execution. The sentiments about infringement of civil liberties will continue as long as the exercise remains flawed. It is evident that the protocol has challenges, but these impediments are human-made. It means that it is possible to correct these problems. However, goodwill and a change in the way the society thinks will go a long way in eliminating the racial profiling problem. Ethical practice, on the other hand, will get rid of police misconduct. The broader criminal justice system plays a significant role in the fight against unlawful stop and frisk exercise.
References
Inbau, F., & Thompson, J. (1968). Stop and frisk: The power and the obligation of the
police. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 59(3), 333-334. Retrieved 31 May 2020.
Parpworth, N. (2014). Allegations of the discriminatory use of stop and search powers before
the courts: Some recent English and American experiences. Police Journal: Theory, Practice, and Principles, 87(2), 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1350/pojo.2014.87.1.665
Ridgeway, G. (n.d). Stop, and frisk is essential and requires restraint. Journal of Policy Analysis
and Management, 688. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam
Stern, L. (1967). Stop and frisk: An historical answer to a modern problem. The Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 58(4), 532-542. Retrieved 31 May 2020.
Younger, E. (1967). Stop and frisk: “Say it like it is.” The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology
and Police Science, 58(3), 293-302. Retrieved 31 May 2020.
.
https://www.quora.com/How-do-abstract-and-introduction-differ-in-academic-writing-terms-Provide-any-example-that-you-can-think-of
https://www.quora.com/How-do-abstract-and-introduction-differ-in-academic-writing-terms-Provide-any-example-that-you-can-think-of