Arresting Dilemma: Stopping Stop and Frisk?
The Bill of Rights in the 4th amendment guarantees protection against unreasonable search and seizure. However, the citizen has a reasonable expectation that the government will protect them against crime. Problems arise when these two basic expectations collide on the streets of our city. Should law enforcement have the power to interrogate and search any suspicious characters (however that may be defined), maximizing security at the expense of personal liberty? Or should the law only intervene when criminal activity is undeniable, thereby reacting to circumstances that may have been preventable. Such constitutional conflicts often find their way to the Supreme Court.
The Law – Is it Constitutional?
Terry v. Ohio (1968) solidified the legality of the former action, sometimes referred to as “stop and frisk”. Fifty-one years ago, Martin McFadden was patrolling his afternoon Cleveland beat when he observed two men acting in what he thought was a suspicious manner. The two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, were alternating walking back and forth in front of a particular store, pausing for a few moments to look in the storefront before resuming their circuit. This apparent reconnaissance continued for several minutes with Officer McFadden observing. After they met with a third man, officer McFadden made his move, confronting the suspicious trio while identifying himself as a police officer. One mumbled reply later, McFadden grabbed Terry, placing him firmly between himself and the other two men. McFadden quickly patted him down and discovered a pistol in the man’s jacket. Read more…