Criminal Procedure And The Constitution: This Is A Discussio

Criminal Procedure And The Constitutionthis Is A Discussion Question J

Explain “stop and frisk†rules. This week, you studied the “stop and frisk†rules and familiarized yourself with the landmark case Terry v. Ohio. You should now have a solid understanding of what procedures are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Please respond to all of the following prompts: What are the two elements of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness test? Explain how the “totality of circumstances†test works in practice. What is “reasonable suspicion†to frisk?

Paper For Above instruction

The “stop and frisk†rules, established primarily through the landmark case Terry v. Ohio (1968), revolve around balancing law enforcement interests with individual Fourth Amendment rights. Under the Fourth Amendment, the reasonableness of a search or seizure depends on two key elements: the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy and the government's interest in conducting the search or seizure. The “totality of circumstances†test evaluates whether, based on all relevant facts, Law enforcement officers have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting criminal activity. In practice, this means officers consider multiple factors such as behavior, location, and context, rather than relying on a single indicator. “Reasonable suspicion†to frisk is a standard that requires officers to have specific, articulable facts indicating that the person may be armed and dangerous, allowing them to perform a limited pat-down to ensure safety without violating constitutional protections. This standard ensures that police actions are justified and proportional to the perceived threat, maintaining a balance between effectiveness and individual rights.

References

  • Commonwealth v. Blood, 368 Mass. 762 (1975).
  • Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981).
  • Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
  • U.S. Const. amend. IV.
  • Harris v. United States, 390 U.S. 234 (1968).
  • Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).
  • United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002).
  • Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (1990).
  • Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
  • Krumm v. Commonwealth, 453 Mass. 239 (2009).

Related Assignments