Criminal Justice

Question and answer, answer the questions provided below.

Question 1. Judicial Approval for Stop and Frisk Searches, TERRY v. OHIO; Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude that criminal activity may be afoot and that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and dangerous, where he identified himself as an officer, and where his fear is not dispelled, may the officer conduct a limited pat- down” of the subject’s outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons? Explain your answer and include the decision of the court.

Question 2. What Constitutes a “Stop” Under the Stop and Frisk Doctrine, MICHIGAN v. CHESTERNUT; Where a person begins to run at the sight of police officers and discards packets, does such investigatory pursuit by police constitute a seizure under the stop and frisk doctrine? Explain your answer and include the decision of the court.

Question 3. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest: The Requirements, CHIMEL v. CALIFORNIA; Absent exigent circumstances, may law enforcement official conduct a complete search of an arrestee’s home on the justification that the search was conducted as incident to the arrest of the occupier of the home? Explain your answer and include the decision of the court.

ANSWER

Criminal Justice

Terry v. Ohio

A ‘stop and frisk’ refers to a brief non-intrusive police stop of a suspect.  The Fourth Amendment allows that if the police have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and may pose a danger, they can give a pat-down of the suspect’s outer clothing to confirm if the suspect has weapons or not and if he or she is about to commit a crime.   However, the search should be reasonable, and the “reasonable suspicion” must be based on “specific and articulate” and should not be based on a mere hunch that one is a criminal fact. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, a plainclothes policeman observed Terry and two other men in what he believed was a ‘ casing a job, a stick-up.’ Hence, he stopped and frisked them and found them with weapons (Katz, 2004). The Supreme Court decided that it is not unconstitutional for a police officer to stop and frisk a person they suspect to be armed and dangerous. Thus, the search and seizure of Terry and the other men by the policeman was not unlawful or violating the Fourth Amendment Terry was charged with carrying illegal weapons and was convicted.

Michigan v. Chesternut

In Michigan V. Chesternut, a respondent began running after seeing a  police car on patrol. The police followed him to “see where he was going,” and after a while, observed him discard some packets. The pills obtained from the discarded packets contained codeine, and he was arrested and found with other illegal drugs (Simon, 2002). The court initially ruled that the arrestee had been unlawfully seized. However, the Supreme upturned the ruling, with claims that the pursuit of the respondent by the officers did not constitute a “seizure” implicating the Fourth Amendment Protections. Accordingly, the charges against him were improperly dismissed. Thus, not all personal contact between citizens and police officers involves ‘seizures.’

Chimel v. California

A search incident to a lawful arrest, also referred to as incident to arrest (SITA), allow the American police to perform a search of an arrested individual and the immediate areas over which the arrestee has control, without a warrant. A search incident is meant to ensure the officer’s safety, retention of evidence, and escape prevention. In Chimel v. California (1969), police officers who had arrest warrants but not search warrants were allowed into the home of the arrestee by his wife (Carrington, 1969). The arrestee denied the officers permission to look around the house, but they searched the entire house.

During his trial, the items seized from his house were used as evidence. The police officers arresting Chimel rummaged through the house and even “instructed Chimel’s wife to remove items from drawers.” The Supreme ruled in favor of Chimel and held that Chimel’s house’s search was not reasonable under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, as the officers did not have warrants and it was not within the areas where he could have obtained the stolen items. The Supreme Court also held that incidents to arrest are only limited to areas where the arrestee has immediate control. Accordingly, the search was considered unreasonable. It went beyond the scope of the area from where he could have obtained the items, and there was no justification for extending the search beyond that area as the officers lacked an arrest warrant.

References

Carrington, F. (1969). Chimel v. California–A Police Response. Notre Dame Law., 45, 559.

Simon, M. G. (2002). Revisiting Michigan v. Long after twenty years. Alb. L. Rev., 66, 969.

Katz, L. R. (2004). Terry v. Ohio at Thirty-Five: A Revisionist View. Miss. LJ, 74, 423.