Stop and Frisk: Discussion
Discussion Board Topic:
What are the requirements before an individual may be stopped and patted down under the Terry case?How does a Terry stop and frisk differ from a normal search of an individual?
Discussion Board Guidelines:
The Court created certain boundaries for government agents with their opinion in Terry v. Ohio. These boundaries have since been codified in state statutes and policy agency procedures. Review the boundaries and requirements created by the Court in Terry. If you were an officer on the street tomorrow, how would Terry affect your behavior during a stop of a citizen? Also, compare and contrast the Terry boundaries with the boundaries of a more in-depth search.
When answering this discussion board, please remember that I am using this assignment to assess whether you have completed and understand the material within the module. It is therefore important that you make your answer thorough enough for me to assess your understanding.
In the U.S., the Terry stop allows the police force to detain and individual briefly based on a reasonable suspicion of having been involved in a criminal act. In Terry versus Ohio case, under the 4th Amendment, there must be a reasonable suspicion that the crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect, before a police officer stops and pats down an individual. About this case, the police must have “specific and attributable facts,” indicating that the individual to be arrested is about to be engaged in a criminal act. If I were a police officer on the street tomorrow, the Terry case would affect my behavior during a stop of a suspect, by compelling me to comply with the 4th Amendment. I would act with prudence and only stop and frisk those suspects whose acts potentially endanger other people in the society; in such a case, I will make a reasonable search for weapons I believe that person might be armed with rendering him dangerous. However, if the suspect does not have the weapons, I will not hold him for an unreasonable time.
The Terry stop and frisk differ from the normal search of an individual in that the stop and frisk search is limited to the suspect’s outer clothing for weaponry. In contrast, the normal search involves the police force probing for evidence. The other difference is that a normal search is more extensive and thorough than a stop and frisk. Also, while a stop-and-frisk is done based on reasonable suspicion, a normal search and seizure required probable cause as stipulated under the 4th Amendment.
As per the Supreme Court, the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement officers. The exclusionary rule prevents the police from conducting seizures or searches in violation of the 4th Amendment. Also, the exclusionary rule sets remedies to defendants whose rights have been infringed. For example, the police force conducts an illegal search on L’s car and finds drugs. In a court of law, the drugs will be excluded as evidence against L under the exclusionary rule.
There are various exceptions to the exclusionary rule, whose purpose is to protect the accused’s Constitutional rights, but not to the extent of not serving justice. First is the good-faith exception, which allows evidence, gathered by police who relies on a search warrant and believes the proof is valid and acceptable during the trial process; second is the inevitable discovery rule exception, which permits improperly acquired evidence to be accepted when it is evident that the evidence would have been eventually discovered through legal means; third is the independent source doctrine exception, which requires that evidence obtained by police is admissible if the officer can prove that it was gathered from an independent source not connected with the illegal seizure of search. Another circumstance under which the exclusionary rule will not apply is in the case of purged taint exception in which evidence obtained will be accepted if the defendant’s subsequent voluntary act dissipates the taint of the initial illegality. Last but not least, the exclusionary rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings where public safety is of great concern to the court.