Respond to Peers: Respond to at least two of your classmates' posts. In your responses to your peers of at least 100 words each, extend the conversation by examining their claims or arguments in more depth.
Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can. For instance, analyze your classmate's discussion of the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable search.
Is their discussion valid, well supported, and logical? Also, support your analysis with examples from the required material(s) and other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references.
Student 1:
• Describe one argument that supports "stop and frisk" policies.
• Describe one argument that opposes "stop and frisk" policies.
• Explain which argument is the most constitutionally sound. Why?
As far as I am concerned working in the law enforcement field and being trained from the police academy and now working in the prison system, the "stop and frisk" policy is a good policy. But as we all know that all too often good policy's get tainted by bad implementation of that policy.
One of the arguments that supports "stop and Frisk" would be the amount of crimes that would be slowed or even stopped by the policy. If an officer sees an individual that looks like he/she may be casing a place to rob or an area where a lot of robberies have occurred. And sees an individual in that area that looks suspicious than contacting that individual and seeing what he/she is up too should only be natural.
An argument against the "stop and frisk" policy is that it was being used to target and harass and basically legalizing racial profiling. "In the executive summary of her opinion, Judge Scheindlin wrote that there were 4.4 million stops made by New York City police between January 2004 and June 2012, and 83 percent of them were made of blacks and Hispanics - even though those racial groups represented 52 percent of the city's population in 2010." Like I said before I like the policy but if it is utilized and practiced for reasons which it is not intended then it could be unconstitutional.
We have a big problem here in the United States with crime and it needs to be fixed. I watched a video on this issue and it said something like for every 10 individuals that were stopped and searched 1 was considered to be a "good target". If that one person doesn't reach my family or friends with his/her intent I would call it a good catch. But it must be implemented and trained as to not harass or profile certain races.
Kiely, E. (September 29, 2016). Factcheck.org. In Is Stop-and-Frisk Unconstitutional?.
Student 2:
Describe one argument that supports "stop and frisk" policies.
An argument that supports the stop and frisk policies was the Terry v. Ohio (1968), the court handed down a landmark decision on a police practice. The court had ruled that when law enforcement have reasonable basis to believe that a person is or was involved in criminal activity or behavior. Chief Warren made it clear that the stop and frisk exception is based on the need to protect law enforcement officers from criminal suspects that may be carrying weapons. (Ivers, 2013)
Describe one argument that opposes "stop and frisk" policies.
An argument that opposes the stop and frisk policies was Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Federal District Court in New York, she said that New York City's stop and frisk program violated the constitutional rights of minority citizens. Mayor Michael Bloomberg have turned a blind eye to law enforcement officers that were conducting stop and frisks in a racially discriminatory manner, which led to them discriminate against African Americans and Hispanics. (The Editorial Board, 2013)
Explain which argument is the most constitutionally sound. Why?
The argument that is most constitutionally sound is the argument that supports the stop and frisk policies, because law enforcement officers should have the right to stop and frisk a person that appear to be suspicious and they should stop and frisk them for any weapons, so that they can protect the citizens of society.
In addition, communities often have more Hispanics and African Americans inhabitants, discrimination is a factor but not when law enforcement has actual probable cause to stop and frisk an individual; to prevent any harm to the public in any way. It should not matter what race a person is law enforcement should make sure that they stop and frisk individuals who look suspicious and not skin color.
References:
Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: an introduction [Electronic version].
Below is a question that was asked by the instructor that every student must answer. This question also requires in text citations.
Evidence has shown that Stop and Frisk is disproportionately used against ethnic minorities. Unless this issue is addressed, this creates a significant non-Fourth Amendment hurdle against "stop and frisk" right? So what needs to be done toward ethnic minorities?