Stop and Frisk and Arrest

Stop and Frisk and Arrest

Title

Name

Professor

School

Date

The power of law enforcement officers to a person to stop , to frisk them for any deadly weapon and even to arrest them is covered by the Fourth Amendment which states that The right of the people to be secure in their persons , houses , s , 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 ' Under the Fourth Amendment , before an arrest or seizure is made , the law enforcement officers must comply with the requirement of probable cause . If this requirement is not complied with then the arrest or seizure is tainted with unconstitutionality

Distinction must however be made of stop and frisks which are less intrusive on personal freedom than an arrest or seizure . In this case law enforcement officers pursuant to the doctrine established in Terry v . Ohio 392 U .S . 1 , may based on reasonable suspicion alone rather than on probable cause stop a person in a public place and ask questions to determine if the person has committed or is about to commit an offense and to frisk the person for weapons if the officer has reasonable concern for his or her own personal safety

In this case , the police officers need only show that at the time of the stop they observed an unusual conduct that led them to reasonably conclude that (1 ) that criminal activity is about to take place or that criminal activity has just taken place and (2 ) that the person with whom he or she is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous . The requirements to a stop have been adequately complied in this case The police officers were dispatched upon receipt of a call because of the robbery which was in progress . Based on the call , three young suspects who were wearing dark clothing robbed a convenience store . At the scene of the crime , they noticed five youths who were jogging and the three of them were wearing the same clothing of the suspects . They ed these people to stop but instead they avoided them and took flight

The requirements to conduct a frisk were also satisfied . In this case the police officers asked the five suspects questions but they were not able to give a satisfactory answer that will dispel the law enforcement officer 's concern for safety . The unexplained flight also justified the limited search on the body of the suspects

The arrest was likewise valid . When the suspects were frisked , they discovered 300 in cash in their possession . The suspects also failed to provide adequate answer as to who gave them the money and why they were in the possession of the said amount . When they contacted their fellow officers who responded to the convenience store they discovered that the suspects matched the...