That would not be reasonable. When frisked, your outer clothing is quickly patted down to determine whether you're carrying or concealing a weapon that could be used to injure the officer. If you match the description of a recent burglary suspect, for example, or were observed running a red light, that would generally be considered reasonable suspicion.
Meaning, they have no basis to suspect you've done anything wrong. Although stop and frisk was designed to reduce crime, it has also been found to scare law-abiding citizens, especially young people of color, and may be exacerbating the divide between law enforcement officers and those they have sworn to protect. Contents 3 min read. Bestselling, award-winning writer Marcia Layton Turner has authored, co-authored, or ghostwritten more than 50 nonfictio… Read more.
More US Law. This handy primer gives you an overview of the search warrant process, including your right to refuse a search, when a warrant is not required and what to do if the police show up at your doorstep.
Last Wills. You want to make sure you have all your assets covered, but did you know that not all property can be bequeathed through a last will and testament? Being wronged or misrepresented is never pleasant, but not all insults are created equally. When you encounter law enforcement officers, you have rights. It's important that you know what they are. During the subsequent trial, attorneys for Terry and Chilton argued that the weapons were obtained by Officer McFadden illegally via an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
They further argued that the weapons were inadmissible as evidence in the case due to the exclusionary rule. The court rejected the argument, and the pistols were used as evidence in support of conviction. The case was appealed to the U. Supreme Court. Terry v. As Professor Rachel Harmon explains, generally, po When must you answer a police officer's qu Who can the president pardon?
Can he pardon himself? I want to talk to you. And whatever they might find, they pull out and they look at it. Lester Holt: Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young men—. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge. Hillary Clinton: Stop and frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective.
It did not do what it needed to do. Daniel Capra: Stop and frisk has been established as a legal practice if certain conditions are met. What are you doing? Who are you doing it with?
Where ya been? Upon reasonable suspicion, these searches can occur. So, is stop legal? The answer is yes, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect—the person—is about to commit or has committed a crime. Second, a frisk is legal, again, upon the condition that the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person whom they have stopped is armed and dangerous. Now, those are the basics. But the answer is stop and frisk is legal.
However, there have been situations in which officers employ stop and frisk in an illegal fashion, and that is the issue that came up in the major lawsuit against the New York City Police Department about their stop and frisk program. The problem with the stop and frisk program as found by the judge—she found that stop and frisk was being used selectively, that it was actually an equal protection problem in the use of the stop and frisk program.
That is to say, it was being used to discriminate against minorities, particularly young African-American men.
In Utah v. Strieff , U. The Strieff Court referenced its earlier ruling in Brown v. Illinois , U. In Brown , the Court held that evidence "obtained by the exploitation of an illegal arrest" is not admissible.