This website uses cookies to ensure you have the best experience. Learn more

Terry Vs. Ohio – Stop Question And Frisk

912 words - 4 pages

The Stop and Frisk program, set by Terry vs. Ohio, is presently executed by the New York Police Department and it grant police officers the ability to stop a person, ask them question and frisk if necessary. The ruling has been a NYPD instrument for a long time. However, recently it has produced a lot of controversy regarding the exasperating rate in which minorities, who regularly fell under assault and irritated by the police. The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling should be implemented correctly by following Terry’s vs. Ohio guidelines which include: reasonable suspicion that a crime is about to be committed, identify himself as a police officer, and make reasonable inquires.
First of all, the initial foundation of the Stop, Question and Frisk ruling started on October 31, 1963 when a Cleveland Police Department investigator, Martin Mcfadden, recognized two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a road turning at 1276 Euclid Avenue and according to the officer, their acts were suspicious. Detective Mcfadden, watched the two going sequentially here and there and then here again along a vague track, stopping to gaze in the same store window. At the end of each track, the two man gathered on a corner. The two men rehashed this activity five or six times. After one of the trips, a third man went along with them (Katz) who left rapidly after a concise discussion. Associating the two men with "packaging an occupation, a stick-up", detective Mcfadden rivalled them and saw them rejoin the third man a few blocks away before a store. The officer then approached them, distinguish himself as a cop. In the process of requiring their names and personal identification, the cop appropriated a muttered reaction.
The detective frisked and led a search of the external clothing of the three folks and two of them carried handguns. They were arrested and declared guilty of possessing cancelled weapons. The Terry vs. Ohio court case hold that cops have the power to confine an individual quickly for addressing even without feasible reason to accept that the individual has perpetrated or is going to perpetrate a wrongdoing. Such an investigatory stop does not constitute a capture and it’s passable when aroused by both the perception that criminal movement may be astir and the capacity to indicate particular and explain truths to legitimize that suspicion. Along these lines, an officer might frisk an individual if the officer suspects that he or she is in risk.
The Stop, Question and Frisk ruling its being wrongfully implemented by the NYPD. In 2011 alone, “700,000 New Yorkers were pulled over for stop and frisk looks. 87 percent were Hispanic or Black and of that rate, 90 percent were...

Find Another Essay On Terry vs. Ohio – Stop Question and Frisk

What is Stop and Frisk? Essay

1653 words - 7 pages What is Stop and Frisk? The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which police officers stop and question tens of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband (New York City Stop-question-frisk program). This program is said to keep weapons of the street but we are sure if their statements are accurate. Though the New York Police Department says

The Stop and Frisk Policy Analysis

1498 words - 6 pages impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts). The Stop and Frisk policy was already being acted out by police officers before this court case but it helped determine when a stop and search is

Stop and Frisk/Racial Profiling Should Be Made Illegal

1653 words - 7 pages What is Stop and Frisk? The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which police officers stop and question tens of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband (New York City Stop-question-frisk program). This program is said to keep weapons of the street but we are sure if their statements are accurate. Though the New York Police Department says

The Stop and Frisk Program within New York City Police Department

1848 words - 8 pages , and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion

The New York Police Department’s Stop and Frisk Policy: A Time Series Analysis

3605 words - 14 pages ., & White, M. D. (2010). Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings. New York: New York University Press. Ridgeway, G. (2007). Analysis of Racial Disparities in the New York Police Department's Stop, Question, and Frisk Practices . Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court June 10, 1968). Whren et al. v. U.S. , 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. Supreme Court June 10, 1996). Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2002

Mapp vs. Ohio: Illegal Search and Seizure

1198 words - 5 pages Mapp vs. Ohio: Illegal Search and Seizure The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and seizure had no method to be enforced. Up until this time, previous cases at set precedents provided little or no protection from illegal searches and seizures for the accused facing state prosecution. On May 23, 1957, Miss Dollree Mapp

Buffalo Creek and the Question of Punitive vs. Compensatory Damages

1695 words - 7 pages Buffalo Creek and the question of punitive v. compensatory damages Damages are a fundamental principle in the American legal system. However, a number of recent cases in the United States have sparked a debate on the issue, the most famous one being the “hot coffee lawsuit”1. In 1994, Stella Liebeck bought coffee at a McDonald’s restaurant, spilt it, and was severely burnt. She sued the McDonald’s company, received $160,000 in compensatory

Reasonable Suspicious

1066 words - 5 pages pulled over a car with suspended insurance. The officer then wanted to question the occupants due to gang activity in the area. When police patted down Johnson, they found a weapon and marijuana. Of course, the traffic stop legalizes the stop and police had reasonable suspicion to frisk the occupants. In each of these cases, the fourth amendment right comes to mind. Frisks and searches are not the same according to the Terry v. Ohio case

Fourth Amendment Rights

2143 words - 9 pages seizures, shall not be violated…”. Specific distinctions within the Amendment are made in the prior case of Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1 [1968]). These distinctions discuss the rules and regulations adherent to stops of individuals by the authority. According to Justice Warren, delivering the opinion of the court in this case, “the police should be allowed to ‘stop’ a person and detaining him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that the individual

Temporary Questioning of Persons in Public Places: Search for Weapons

2481 words - 10 pages 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. History 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

Racial Profiling By Police Should Be Illegal

1729 words - 7 pages What is Stop and Frisk? The New York City stop-question-and-frisk program is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which police officers stop and question tens of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband (New York City Stop-question-frisk program). This program is said to keep weapons of the street but we are sure if their statements are accurate. Though the New York Police Department says

Similar Essays

Stop Question And Frisk Essay

1131 words - 5 pages The stop, question and frisk policy is one of the most widely known controversy in the whole of New York City for the past years. Since its creation, the ongoing conflict between the New York Police Department and the citizens has never been resolved. There were several attempts to prevent the use of this policy, but all were unsuccessful. The main idea of this paper is to show how stop, question and frisk became a conflict between the New York

Stop And Frisk Essay

1885 words - 8 pages likely to commit a crime. The origin of Stop and Frisk traces back to the Supreme Court case of Terry V. Ohio, which took place in 1968. Terry, an experienced plainclothes officer, stopped and frisked three suspicious men; one produced a gun with no permit. This Supreme Court case essentially claimed Stop and Frisk to be constitutional under the Fourth Amendment (PBS Newshour). Stop and Frisk can essentially limits the rights of certain individuals

Stop And Frisk Essay

3171 words - 13 pages be racially motivated and that the police have a hidden agenda directed toward minorities. You may feel that your rights have been violated and question that legality of what just happen to you. Many opponents of the stop and frisk law have wondered of this law is constitutional or not. Actually most of these individuals would say that the law violates their fourth amendment right. The fourth amendment of the constitution provides: “The

Stop And Frisk Essay

782 words - 4 pages On August 12th 2013, a New York City judge, Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that the New York City Police Department’s (NYPD) policy, stop-and-frisk, is unconstitutional. Stop-and-frisk is a policy that allows police officers to stop people they deem suspicious. They are permitted to frisk them in search for illegal items such as weapons and/or drugs. Since Mayor Bloomberg introduced stop-and-frisk to the city it has been very controversial. The