The fourth amendment states that the right of people are under protection in any place they are, in their houses, persons, and papers. Thus, they are protected against any searches and seizures unless there are probably cause that enough evidence supports to warrant the search or arrest. Understanding the difference between arrest and detention can be confusing yet critical for any citizen because these are circumstances in which people find themselves, and understanding them would make a person know how to handle them. The fourth Amendment which is based on the concepts of search and seizure and the concept of the probable cause, makes it more difficult for some citizens to understand what it means to be legally under arrest. Defining the two terms thus can shed light on these concepts before venturing deep into principles and the court cases on these matters. Detention is where an officer stops a citizen and briefly ask questions. In this sense, such a person cannot walk free but is also not under arrest. A good example is when a person is behaving strangely or suspiciously; a police officer stops such a person to ask brief questions. Such a persona may be, for instance, walking past a company severally or looking at someone in a manner, suggesting there is criminal intention ( Saleh & Qubaia, 2015). The police officer has a right to stop such a person and ask some questions with an intent to find any issues that link the person to suspicion or whether such a person is armed. Another excellent example of detention is where a police officer pulls a driver and ask some questions after noticing a careless driving or the driving breaking some traffic rules. Such are the cases of detention. The court justifies such issues by looking at the amount of force used by the officer, the need to use force in such a situation, whether the suspect is armed as suspected, the length of stop, and how the officers handle the situation. On the other hand, an arrest occurs where the law enforcers take a suspect in custody with stringent rules of restrictions on rights and freedom, such as movement. For a valid arrest, an officer must validate the probable course in the court of law, where the evidence to justify the probable cause must be strong to warrant an arrest. The incidence was a landmark case that outlines some principles of arrest and detentions. It was a case about the police who suspected Terry and his fellows after seeing them acting strangely. The Officer was then forced, after noticing repeated movements alongside some strange conversations, to stop these individuals and frisk them. The officer found that they were armed. It brought the question of whether such actions by the officers was against the fourth Amendments of search and seizure. From the court’s ruling, the practice of stopping and frisking a suspect in public without probable cause does not violate the Fourth Amendment , as long as the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” that the person may be committing a crime, have committed a crime, or is planning to commit a crime, and that the person “may be armed and presently dangerous ( Stoughton, 2017). In contrast to Terry vs. Ohio, law enforcers can validly detain and arrest a person where there is a probable cause. For instance, the police officer must have reasons to suspect a person before pulling them over for briefing. The level of evidence to justify the probable cause is a task of the court. In this case, arrests and detention requirements are only valid when there is probable cause, and this makes these requirements differ from the one started by the supreme court during the Terry vs. Ohio case.
References
Saleh, A. J., & Qubaia, A. A. (2015). Transwomen’s Navigation of Arrest and Detention In Beirut: A Case Study (En-Ar). Civil Society Knowledge Center, Lebanon Support .
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Stoughton, S. W. (2017). Terry v. Ohio and the (un) forgettable frisk. Ohio St. J. Crim. L. , 15 , 19.
