STOP AND FRISK
Terry v. Ohio and NY City Stop and Frisk
Policy
Last Class We Talked About….
• Miranda Rights
• False Confessions
This Class We Will Talk About….
• Terry Stops
• NY Stop and Frisk
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 property
Terry Facts
• Ohio, 1968
• A plainclothes police officer saw 3 men acting strangely
•
•
•
•
•
outside a store
2 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 away
The police officer suspected them of “casing” the store to
rob it
He 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 them
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.
Supreme Court Holding
• The police officer was conducting a reasonable
search
• Limited 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 action
• Stop and Frisk is constitutional where there is
“reasonable suspicion of involvement in
criminal activity”
Proof Standards
• Highest: Conviction
• Middle: Warrant
• Lowest: Terry Stop
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.
NY Stop and Frisk Policy Debate
• Step 1: Read articles silently to yourself.
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 policy
• Group 2 is against keeping the stop and frisk policy
• Group 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.
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.
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.
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?