STOP AND FRISK - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

STOP AND FRISK

Terry v. Ohio and NY City Stop and Frisk PolicySlide2

Last Class We T

alked

About….

Miranda RightsFalse Confessions

This Class We Will Talk About….

Terry Stops

NY Stop and FriskSlide3

It All Comes Back to Terry

Terry v. Ohio

, 392 U.S. 1, 21, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed.2d 889 (1968)

Stop and Frisks are allowed in different circumstances than an arrest or seizure of propertySlide4

Terry Facts

Ohio

,

1968A plainclothes police officer saw 3 men acting strangely outside a store2 of the men walked up and down several times looking in the same store window

A 3rd man walked up, had a short whispered conversation and then walked awayThe police officer suspected them of “casing” the store to rob itHe

walked up to them, told them he was a police officer and patted them down outside their

coats

2

of the men had guns and he arrested themSlide5

4th

Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,

against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Slide6

Supreme Court Holding

The police officer was conducting a

reasonable

searchLimited in scope: only the outside of the coats until he felt a gun

Due to his experience, the strange way the men were acting, and the overall circumstances the police officer was reasonable in suspecting them and taking actionStop and Frisk is constitutional where there is “reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity”Slide7

Proof Standards

Highest

: Conviction

Middle: Warrant

Lowest: Terry StopSlide8

Proof Standards

Highest

: Conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge, Jury.Middle

: Warrant, probable cause. Police Officer, Judge, Prosecutor.Lowest: Terry Stop, reasonable suspicion. Police Officer.Slide9

NY Stop and Frisk Policy Debate

Step 1: Read articles silently to yourself.Slide10

NY Stop and Frisk Policy Debate

Step 1: Read articles silently to yourself.

Step 2: count off, 1-3.

Step 3: meet in your groups and discuss your arguments.Group 1 is pro keeping the stop and frisk policyGroup 2 is against keeping the stop and frisk policyGroup 3 are the Mayors of NY City. You get to decide if the policy stays, goes, or stays but changes in some way.

NOTE: This is a policy debate not just a legal one. It is important to think about the general concerns of crime and safety as well as racial profiling.Slide11

NY Stop and Frisk Policy Debate

Step 4: Break up into groups of 3, 1 person from Group 1, 1 person from Group 2, and 1 person from Group 3.

Step 5: Each person from Group 1 and 2 will take turns going through the arguments. At the end they will discuss if there is anyway to compromise.

Step 6: After hearing from both sides the Mayors will make their decisions and explain to the class why they decided the way they did.Slide12

Real NY Case

A federal judge declared the NY stop and frisk policy unconstitutional as it was targeting minorities in traditionally minority neighborhoods.

The

new Mayor of NY, De Blasio, decided to reform the policy in accordance with what the judge said and to settle cases pending on the issue.This does not mean that stop and frisk itself is unconstitutional but rather that the NY police were implementing it in a way that violated the constitution.Slide13

Seattle

Seattle also deals with this issue. Have you, or do you know someone who has been stopped by the police? What did they do? What did you do?

Federal Department of Justice recently investigated Seattle Police for unconstitutional policies and practices.

How will the ruling in NY affect Seattle’s use of stop and frisk?