Stops and Frisks - Revision history

IBJadmin at 08:56, 26 September 2012

2012-09-26T08:56:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:56, 26 September 2012
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Languages\|Stops and Frisks}}


	==Background==		==Background==
	Generally police have the right to make limited contact with citizens that is short of arrest. The standard for this contact varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction.		Generally police have the right to make limited contact with citizens that is short of arrest. The standard for this contact varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction.

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-11-09T08:27:53Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 9 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	Generally police have the right to make limited contact with citizens that is short of arrest. The standard for this contact varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction.		Generally police have the right to make limited contact with citizens that is short of arrest. The standard for this contact varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction.
			[[File:spectrumofstops.jpg]]

	==United States==		==United States==

Ibjadmin: /* More Restrictive State Constitutions */

2010-07-16T09:51:03Z

More Restrictive State Constitutions

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:51, 16 July 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks. In [[People v. Debour, 40 NY2d 210 (New York 1976)]] the New York Supreme Court implemented a more rigorous four-tiered system for stops and frisks.		Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks. In [[People v. Debour, 40 NY2d 210 (New York 1976)]] the New York Supreme Court implemented a more rigorous four-tiered system for stops and frisks.

	*'''Level 1 - Request for Information'''		*'''Level 1 - Request for Information''' - At this level an officer may approach an individual if they have an ''articulable reason'' for doing so even though they have neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause to believe the individual committed a crime. At this stage, the officer is limited in both the types of questions (identity questions are ok) and the manner or tone in which these questions are delivered.
	*'''Level 2 - Common-Law Right to Inquire'''		*'''Level 2 - Common-Law Right to Inquire''' - The common-law right to inquire is activated by a ''founded suspicion that criminal activity is afoot'' and permits a somewhat greater intrusion in that a policeman is entitled to interfere with a citizen to the extent necessary to gain explanatory information, but short of a forcible seizure
	*'''Level 3 - Forcible Stop and Frisk'''		*'''Level 3 - Forcible Stop and Frisk''' - If an officer determines that they have a ''reasonable suspicion'', they may conduct a stop and frisk.
	*'''Level 4 - Arrest''' A police officer in New York may arrest an individual if they have a probably ~~casue~~ to believe the individual has committed a crime.<ref> NY CPL 140.10</ref>		*'''Level 4 - Arrest''' A police officer in New York may arrest an individual if they have a ''probably cause'' to believe the individual has committed a crime.<ref> NY CPL 140.10</ref>

	----		----

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-07-16T09:44:45Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:44, 16 July 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:

	==United States==		==United States==
	In [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]] the United States Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable [[Search and Seizure \| searches and seizures]] did not restrict a police officer's right to make a limited investigatory stop even though the officer did not have probable cause necessary to effect ~~and~~ [[Arrest \| arrest]]. The Court held that when a citizen was stopped by a police officer a "stop" had occured for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. However, because the intrusion was less than a full blown arrest, a lower standard of "reasonable suspicision" was required before an officer could make such a stop.		In [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]] the United States Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable [[Search and Seizure \| searches and seizures]] did not restrict a police officer's right to make a limited investigatory stop even though the officer did not have probable cause necessary to effect an [[Arrest \| arrest]]. The Court held that when a citizen was stopped by a police officer a "stop" had occured for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. However, because the intrusion was less than a full blown arrest, a lower standard of "reasonable suspicision" was required before an officer could make such a stop.

	Reasonable suspicion was defined as "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the logical conclusion that "criminal activity is afoot". <Ref> [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]]</ref>		Reasonable suspicion was defined as "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the logical conclusion that "criminal activity is afoot". <Ref> [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]]</ref>

Ibjadmin: /* Background */

2010-07-16T09:43:24Z

Background

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:43, 16 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Background==		==Background==
	Generally police have the right to make limited contact with citizens that is short of arrest. The standard for this contact varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction.		Generally police have the right to make limited contact with citizens that is short of arrest. The standard for this contact varies from jurisidiction to jurisdiction.


	==United States==		==United States==

Ibjadmin: /* More Restrictive State Constitutions */

2010-07-16T09:40:29Z

More Restrictive State Constitutions

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:40, 16 July 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	===More Restrictive State Constitutions===		===More Restrictive State Constitutions===
	Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks. In [[People v. Debour, 40 NY2d 210 (New York 1976)]] the New York Supreme Court implemented a more rigorous four-tiered		Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks. In [[People v. Debour, 40 NY2d 210 (New York 1976)]] the New York Supreme Court implemented a more rigorous four-tiered system for stops and frisks.

			*'''Level 1 - Request for Information'''
			*'''Level 2 - Common-Law Right to Inquire'''
			*'''Level 3 - Forcible Stop and Frisk'''
			*'''Level 4 - Arrest''' A police officer in New York may arrest an individual if they have a probably casue to believe the individual has committed a crime.<ref> NY CPL 140.10</ref>

	----		----

Ibjadmin: /* State Constitutions */

2010-07-16T09:35:11Z

State Constitutions

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:35, 16 July 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:
	Reasonable suspicion was defined as "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the logical conclusion that "criminal activity is afoot". <Ref> [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]]</ref>		Reasonable suspicion was defined as "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the logical conclusion that "criminal activity is afoot". <Ref> [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]]</ref>

	===State Constitutions===		===More Restrictive State Constitutions===
	Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks.		Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks. In [[People v. Debour, 40 NY2d 210 (New York 1976)]] the New York Supreme Court implemented a more rigorous four-tiered

	----		----

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-07-16T09:28:23Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 16 July 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:
	In [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]] the United States Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable [[Search and Seizure \| searches and seizures]] did not restrict a police officer's right to make a limited investigatory stop even though the officer did not have probable cause necessary to effect and [[Arrest \| arrest]]. The Court held that when a citizen was stopped by a police officer a "stop" had occured for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. However, because the intrusion was less than a full blown arrest, a lower standard of "reasonable suspicision" was required before an officer could make such a stop.		In [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]] the United States Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable [[Search and Seizure \| searches and seizures]] did not restrict a police officer's right to make a limited investigatory stop even though the officer did not have probable cause necessary to effect and [[Arrest \| arrest]]. The Court held that when a citizen was stopped by a police officer a "stop" had occured for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. However, because the intrusion was less than a full blown arrest, a lower standard of "reasonable suspicision" was required before an officer could make such a stop.

	Reasonable suspicion was defined as "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the logical conclusion that "criminal activity is afoot". <Ref> [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]]		Reasonable suspicion was defined as "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the logical conclusion that "criminal activity is afoot". <Ref> [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]]</ref>

	===State Constitutions===		===State Constitutions===

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-07-16T09:28:09Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 16 July 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	==United States==		==United States==
	In [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]] the United States Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable [[Search and Seizure \| searches and seizures]] did not restrict a police officer's right to make a limited investigatory stop even though the officer did not have probable cause necessary to effect and [[Arrest \| arrest]].		In [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]] the United States Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable [[Search and Seizure \| searches and seizures]] did not restrict a police officer's right to make a limited investigatory stop even though the officer did not have probable cause necessary to effect and [[Arrest \| arrest]]. The Court held that when a citizen was stopped by a police officer a "stop" had occured for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. However, because the intrusion was less than a full blown arrest, a lower standard of "reasonable suspicision" was required before an officer could make such a stop.

			Reasonable suspicion was defined as "specific and articulable facts which taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant" the logical conclusion that "criminal activity is afoot". <Ref> [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]]

	===State Constitutions===		===State Constitutions===

Ibjadmin: /* United States */

2010-07-16T09:19:55Z

United States

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:19, 16 July 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	==United States==		==United States==
	In the United States		In [[Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)]] the United States Supreme Court stated that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable [[Search and Seizure \| searches and seizures]] did not restrict a police officer's right to make a limited investigatory stop even though the officer did not have probable cause necessary to effect and [[Arrest \| arrest]].


	===State Constitutions===		===State Constitutions===
	Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks.		Some states provide for additional protections against unwarrante police intrusion. For instance, in New York, the Supreme Court has concluded that the State Constitution provides heightened scrutiny for stops and frisks.