Stop and Frisk Law

Table of Contents

Introduction3

Discussion4

Policy Recommendations4

Policy Implications5

Public and Criminal Justice's response to the issue6

Personal policy recommendation7

Conclusion8

References9

Stop and Frisk Law

Introduction

The US Constitution is comprehensive and clear in defining the right of the citizens of the United States. It also provides the basic framework and guidelines that define how the rights are to be delivered. However, there are certain parts in the US Constitution that are controversial and are a popular subject of debate among analysts of national policy. Perhaps this is because the US Constitution tries to strike the right when it attempts to ensure that the rights of the Americans are upheld while also promising them security from threats.

The Stop and Frisk policy defined under the Fourth Amendment is such a policy adopted by the US government as it allows law enforcement officers to carry out frisking of individuals who they suspect are concealing objects that can be used to carry out a crime (Sarat et al., 2011). Although it has been debated that the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects the American citizens from an unreasonable search or seizure, incidences have been reported where law enforcement officers have violated the rights provided to them by the state (Harr et al., 2012). The Stop and Frisk policy has given rise to cases of racial discrimination and racial profiling where the rights of the citizens as defined by the US constitution are flagrantly being violated (Spitzer, 1999).

Therefore, although the policy significantly reduces instances of crime by discouraging criminals into thinking that they may be stopped and frisked at any time, a significant percentage of the American population, the minorities in particular, have been equally terrorized by law enforcement officials who have the constitutional power and authority to stop and frisk them at their discretion (Inbau et al., 1996). Implementation of the policy with such a discriminatory and biased approach only serves to alienate good citizens and further isolates the minorities, straining the delicate relationship that exists between the community and the police.

Thesis Statement

Although designed to ensure the protection and security of US citizens, the powers vested to the law enforcement agencies by the Stop and Frisk policy have been repeatedly violated and measures must be placed to ensure that the rights of the citizens are protected.

Discussion

The terms 'frisking' and 'pat downs' refer to a manual search of the outer clothing of a person. It requires an officer employed by a law enforcement agency to run their hands along a suspect's outer garments with the aim of manually detecting a concealed object. Law enforcement personnel officers typically carry out frisking of a person if they harbor a strong suspicion in their mind that the person is concealing an unlawful object (Sarat et al., 2011). Weapons and abusive substances are among the most common concealed objects for which an officer may frisk a suspected person. The persons who are subjected to a frisking routine are suspected who is generally suspected of carrying concealed object such as a weapon or ...