7-3 Stop and Frisks

Balancing act of police work involves urgency to act on suspected criminal activity and avoiding harassment of innocent individuals.
The concept of reasonable suspicion is critical for justifying stop-and-frisk situations.

Distinguish between a stop and a frisk, citing Terry v. Ohio as pivotal.
- A stop is a temporary detention for questioning, whereas a frisk is a limited pat-down for weapons.
- Terry v. Ohio (1968) established key precedent regarding reasonable suspicion in stop-and-frisk situations.

Case details: Detective McFadden observed two men acting suspiciously near a downtown Cleveland store.
- The men repeatedly walked past the store, conferred at street corners, and exhibited behavior that suggested potential criminal intent.
McFadden approached the men, identified himself, and requested identification.
Following a vague response, he conducted a frisk, discovering handguns on two of the individuals.
Supreme Court ruling: upheld McFadden’s actions, establishing he had reasonable cause to believe the suspects were armed and dangerous, necessitating swift action for safety.

The Supreme Court refrains from imposing strict restrictions on police stops, allowing some discretion to law enforcement.
- Must possess "specific and articulable facts" to justify a stop, but these can include rational inferences made from the situation.
Application in real cases:
- In a 2002 case, the Court found a Border Patrol agent's stop of a minivan reasonable based on driver and passenger behavior.
- Actions such as stiffening, slowing down, avoiding eye contact, and mechanical waving by children indicated potential criminal activity.
Chief Justice Rehnquist pointed out the uniqueness of the circumstances (rural location near the Mexican border) justifying suspicion.
Emphasized that addressing potential terrorist threats is included in the totality evaluation, providing law enforcement leeway for stops, especially near borders.

The terms 'stop' and 'frisk' are often used together but represent two separate actions.
A stop occurs when law enforcement has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has either occurred or is about to occur.
An investigatory stop is not considered an arrest, meaning there are limitations on how long a police officer can detain someone.

In a notable case, an airline traveler was detained for ninety minutes while police awaited the arrival of a drug-sniffing dog.
- Supreme Court ruling: Although the initial stop was constitutional, the prolonged ninety-minute wait was deemed excessive.

In a 2004 ruling, the Supreme Court established that police officers could require suspects to identify themselves during valid stops under Terry v. Ohio.
- This case involved a Nevada rancher fined $250 for refusing to disclose his identity during an investigation of a potential assault.
- The defendant contended that such requests forced citizens to incriminate themselves, violating the Fifth Amendment.
- Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that asking questions is crucial for police investigations, and officers need to determine a suspect's identity for effective law enforcement.
- This ruling validated "stop-and-identify" laws in twenty states and numerous cities and towns.

The Supreme Court has stated that a frisk should be a protective measure.
Police officers cannot conduct a frisk as a “fishing expedition” to find items besides weapons, such as illegal narcotics.
A frisk does not necessarily follow a stop and may occur only when the officer believes that safety may be endangered.

In this case, Bryant Mitchell argued that Ogden police officers violated his rights by frisking him.
- Mitchell was wearing only a pair of shorts, limiting the places to hide a weapon.
- He claimed that the obscenities he shouted were a greeting, not a threat.

Frisks must be supported by reasonable suspicion.
A Utah appeals court rejected Mitchell’s arguments, stating that the officers had objective reasons to believe he was “armed and dangerous” due to his gang affiliation and behavior.
In the Terry case, the Supreme Court upheld that reasonable suspicion, based on the suspects’ refusal to answer questions, justified the officer’s frisk actions.

In 2009, the Court extended “stop-and-frisk” authority.
Officers may order a passenger in a pulled-over vehicle to submit to a pat-down.
This requires reasonable suspicion that the suspect may be armed and dangerous, similar to the standard for initial stops.

By law, a person's race or ethnicity alone cannot provide reasonable suspicion for stops and frisks.
Statistical measures suggest that race and ethnicity may be troubling factors in policing.

In a five-year period on a drug-trafficking stretch of Interstate 5 near Los Angeles:
- Nearly 70% of drivers pulled over by sheriff's deputies were Latino.
- Two-thirds of these Latino drivers had their vehicles searched, compared to less than half of drivers of other races.
- The rate of finding illegal items was similar across all races.
In Chicago:
- Despite representing 31% of the population, African Americans are involved in 60% of traffic stops by the Chicago Police Department.
Research from Stanford University analyzed 60 million police stops across 20 states:
- Black drivers are 20% more likely to be ticketed than white drivers.
- Latino drivers are 30% more likely to be ticketed than white drivers.
- Black and Latino drivers are twice as likely to be searched as white drivers.

Statistics suggest that police departments may use racial profiling in determining which suspects to stop.
Racial profiling involves police actions based on race or ethnicity rather than reasonable suspicion of illegal activity.
Pretextual stops allow officers to provide valid reasons for stops, making racial motivations often legally irrelevant.

If statistical data indicate improper targeting of minority groups, remedies include:
- Civil lawsuits against law enforcement agencies for constitutional violations.
- Implementing agency policies to end racial profiling practices.
Many states and cities have taken steps to ban or reduce racial profiling, with no negative impact on crime rates.
- In New York City, an aggressive stop-and-frisk program targeting minority groups was curtailed, leading to stops dropping from nearly 700,000 to approximately 22,000 within four years, while violent crime rates continued to decrease.