When the police conduct searches or frisking on individuals, various rights should govern you and the police to ensure a just and fair process. The stop and frisk situation requires a legal procedure that has been legal in the United States since 1968. This after a Supreme Court gave a ruling in the famous Terry v. Ohio that permitted law enforcement officers to be flexible enough to temporarily detain and search an individual whom they suspect to have done wrong or is in the process of conducting illegal activity. The ruling has been adopted across the United States, and most people view the stop and frisk deed as a form of nuisance. This paper explores when police can stop and frisk an individual and apply the Fourth Amendment right. When a police officer approaches and asks you questions, the office should lawfully raise questions in an open public place. In this case, one should ask if he or she is free to leave, and if the officer refuses, do not walk away but ask why and remain at the same place. In this case, the police ordered a stop, which was legal due to an invasion in the area. Police can only stop an individual if they suspect an illegal activity and have the legal mandate to control people. A stop by the police officers implies that one is not under arrest but not free to leave at will. A reasonable stop emanates from a probable cause to believe that one has made a mistake. Subsequently, the police are allowed to frisk an individual when there is a reasonable doubt that the one being frisked as a weapon might endanger others' lives. Frisking happens by a pat down the outer clothing to determine whether an individual is concealing any weapons. One can be frisked if the police officer is alone without any backup, when one is suspected of being armed, suspicion due to evasive answers to questions asked, or the time of the day in conjunction with other factors. Remaining calm and silent is the best way to act when police officers demand a stop and frisk. The United States is guided by the Fourth Amendment Right, limiting the general public's exploitation by police officers. In the United States Constitution, there is a provision for individuals' right and freedom to be safe in their houses, papers, person, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, with no violation, no warrants, but upon any reasonable cause supported by the oath or declaration. The Fourth Amendment aims to award the right to privacy and independence from unreasonable intrusions by the administration (Sundby, 2017). It does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures but is only done by the relevant authority deemed unreasonable according to the rules and regulations. I believe that the police are enforcers of the law and are always right in all they do. In this case, I would stop and communicate effectively with authority to ensure I do not fall victim to circumstances with the police. If one has not done any wrong, stopping, allowing to be frisked, and observing the Fourth Amendment Right is vital to reduce mistaken identity cases.
References
Sundby, S. E. (2017). The rugged individual's guide to the Fourth Amendment: How the court's idealized citizen shapes, influences, and excludes the exercise of constitutional rights. SSRN Electronic Journal . https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2941669
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
