Stop and Frisk Rule
However, an officer is limited in
his search by the 4th Amendment which gives people the right to have security
against an unreasonable search or seizure. The stop and frisk rule was first
adopted by the state of New York in 1964. In 1968 a court in Ohio expanded the
mandate of this law to allow policemen to carry out searches on a suspect for
narcotics, weapons and illegal foreigners whenever they had a reasonable
suspicion of their concealment. This was after a policeman spotted with
suspicion two men walking in a street and peering in a window of a store. His
stop and frisk operation on them resulted in finding unlicensed gun in one of
the suspects. Although the officer had acted on a reasonable
suspicion than a probable cause, the results justified his actions.
This however has continued to
elicit controversy in its connection to arrest. In actual sense, arrest
involves a procedural action while stop does not. However, if in the process of
frisking finds out incriminating evidence, such a stop may lead to eventual
arrest. Due to similar concerns on the frequency and intentions in police
searches, the New York Police Department (NYPD) in 2001 improvised a stop and
search police where the stopping officers would be required to explain to the
suspect the reason for being stopped.
This followed a concern over the haphazard stoppage of a number of a particular
minority group for no legal reason following a deadly shooting of unarmed
member of the same society.
Justification
The justification of this rule comes is based
on the fact that, a stop and frisk operation has the potential of protecting a
police officer and other citizen population from any subsequent danger if the
suspect is armed and was on the process of committing a crime. The success of
stop and frisk relies on the ability of a stopping officer to read the
psychology of the suspects. It is however normal to find people with criminal
intentions and drug peddlers among intermingled with ordinary population. There are exceptions to similar but regular
operations like the stops and searches that occurs on border points does not fall
under this category.
In summary, the intention of stop
and frisk rule is as good as the results that are achieved by the process
itself. This is the only opportunity that provides the officers with a chance
of abating crime before it actually happens. Furthermore, prevention is better
than cure and putting the safety of an officer first whenever he is on his line
of duty is not bad at all. However, the suspect must be accorded his regal
rights to prevent unwarranted harassment from the officers.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment