Select Two Discussion Questions From The List Of Questions B

Select Two Discussion Questions From The List Of Questions Below And P

Select two discussion questions from the list of questions below and post your response addressing the two questions in one post-response (be sure to identify the questions you selected in your response). Provide sources (e.g.: article/book/case law) to support your arguments. Main discussion responses should be at least 250 words per answer. NO (AI) WRITTEN! This post is due 02/09/2024 before 11:59! A stop and frisk is different from an arrest. Discuss the differences and similarities between these two types of seizures. What level of proof is required for each? How do the different types of situations that these different seizures are used for affect the standards the Court uses to judge their constitutionality? What factors were involved in the Court's decisions regarding these two types of seizures? Under what circumstances is a stationhouse detention considered "reasonable" by the Court? What circumstances is a stationhouse detention considered "unreasonable" by the Court? Discuss the reasoning cited by the Court.

Paper For Above instruction

The legal distinctions between stop and frisk procedures and arrests are critical to understanding Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Both are investigative detentions, yet they differ significantly in their scope, justification, and the standards of proof required for their implementation. Additionally, the reasonableness of stationhouse detention also depends on contextual factors, with courts scrutinizing the circumstances under which individuals are detained.

A stop and frisk, or a Terry stop, is a brief investigatory detention that allows police officers to stop an individual if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1968). This suspicion must be particularized and articulable, based on specific and credible facts that suggest possible criminal activity. The purpose of this brief detention is to investigate whether the individual is involved in misconduct, and it may include a limited pat-down search if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed and dangerous (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177, 2004). Notably, the standard for reasonable suspicion is lower than probable cause, reflecting the temporary and non-invasive nature of the stop and frisk.

In contrast, an arrest involves taking an individual into custody based on probable cause—a higher standard requiring reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed a crime (Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 1949). Arrests are more intrusive, often leading to subsequent searches and detentions. The legal justification for arrests is rooted in the expectation that the individual’s freedom is substantially restricted, and thus, the Fourth Amendment requires a higher level of suspicion to justify this deprivation.

Courts evaluate the constitutionality of these seizures based on different standards of "reasonableness." For stops and frisks, the Court emphasizes whether the officer’s suspicion was reasonable based on the totality of circumstances at the time of the stop. For arrests, the focus is whether there was probable cause supporting the detention. The Court examines factors such as the officers’ observations, the context of the encounter, and the credibility of the suspicious behavior involved.

Decisions by the Court regarding these seizures often hinge on the balance between individual rights and law enforcement interests. In Terry v. Ohio, the Court underscored the importance of safeguarding citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights against arbitrary intrusions while allowing police to act swiftly in situations requiring immediate investigation (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1968). The Court generally considers stationhouse detention reasonable if it adheres to the codes of due process, is not excessively lengthy, and if there are adequate grounds such as arrest warrants or ongoing investigation. Conversely, detention becomes unreasonable when it is indefinite without a formal charge, when there is no probable cause, or if the detainee’s rights are violated through coercive or oppressive conditions (York v. Wisconsin, 336 U.S. 994, 1949).

In conclusion, the distinction between stop and frisk and arrests is rooted in their legal standards and the circumstances under which they are justified. Recognizing these differences helps ensure that law enforcement practices comply with constitutional protections while enabling effective policing.

References

• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
• Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 542 U.S. 177 (2004).
• Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).
• York v. Wisconsin, 336 U.S. 994 (1949).
• United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002).
• Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (1983).
• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
• United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980).
• United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
• United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987).