Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places, Search for Weapons
Victoria K. Poon
Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places; Search for Weapons
In the City of New York, it is not unusual to feel uncomfortable or petrified when approached by an officer of the law. It is not uncommon to notice the disrespect that individuals have towards the New York Police Department. It is not strange to see the misconduct that police officers use on the public. It is not unusual to see the corrupt in the New York Police Department. However, it is uncommon to see police officers who enforce the laws of New York with their unbiased discretion. Temporary questioning of persons in public places and search for weapons has been a major controversial topic for years. Many have sought it to be a legal way to racially profile an individual.
It was not until recently this past summer, August 2013, which the Supreme Court of New York City; on the case of Floyd v. New York City, 813 F.Supp.2d 457. The Supreme Court of New York City ruled that it was unconstitutional of the way it was being implicated, which ended the long term practice of Stop, Question and Frisk.
The Fourth Amendment is to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures without a warrant. The Fourteenth Amendment also includes the Equal Protection issue that provides citizens the right to be protected from being discriminated against an improper manner because of race or class.
Stop, Question and Frisk or Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places became a law in New York after a police incident that occurred in Ohio. In 1968, in the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968), “The officer descried the Petitioner verbalizing with another individual on a street corner while pacing up and down the same street. The men would periodically peer into a store window and then verbalize some more. The men verbalized with a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. The officer believed that the Petitioner and the other men were checking the exterior and interior area of the store for a potential larceny. The officer decided to approach the men for querying, and given the nature of the comportment the officer decided to perform an expeditious search of the men a fore querying. An expeditious frisking of the Petitioner engendered a concealed weapon and the Petitioner was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.” In which the United States Supreme Court decided that the search is reasonable when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed and cause danger to individuals of the community or to the officer. A typical beat officer would be unduly burdened by being prohibited from searching individuals that the officer suspects to be armed.
However, in Floyd v. City of New York City, 813 F.Supp.2d 457, is a...