More handpicked essays just for you.
Racial profiling issues and solutions
Racial profiling issues and solutions
Describe racial profiling by police forces
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Racial profiling issues and solutions
As police officer you can stop someone and pat them down this is called a stop and frisk or a terry stop. But you can’t just stop and frisk anyone you want, you have to have reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. The reason this comes up as a police issue is for two reasons:
The first reason that it can violate your fourth amendment right. In 2013 Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, ruled that New York City police officers have for years been stopping innocent people in the street without any objective reason to suspect them of wrongdoing. Officers often frisked these people, usually young minority men, for weapons or searched their pockets for contraband, like drugs, before letting them go. This is an issue because police officers
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, 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" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
To summarize the Fourth Amendment, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. A search conducted by the government exists when the area or person being searched would reasonably have an expectation of privacy. A seizure takes place when the government takes a person or property into custody based on belief a criminal law was violated. If a search or seizure is deemed unreasonable, than any evidence obtained during that search and seizure can be omitted from court under
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
Stop and Frisk is a procedure put into use by the New York Police Department that allows an officer to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they consider her or him to be. The NYPD don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. Officers solely need to regard you as “suspicious” to violate your fourth amendment rights without consequences. Since its Beginning, New York City’s stop and frisk program has brought in much controversy originating from the excessive rate of arrest. While the argument that Stop and Frisk violates an individual’s fourth amendment rights of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could definitely be said, that argument it’s similar to the argument of discrimination. An unfair number of Hispanics and
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The 4th amendment protects US citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. If it is violated by the government, all evidence found by the unlawful search and seizure must be excluded as per the exclusionary rule which serves as a remedy for 4th amendment violations. Before a remedy can be given for violation of the 4th amendment, a court must determine whether the 4th amendment is applicable to a certain case.
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
If given this prompt at the beginning of this semester I would have answered with a resounding yes, the criminal justice system is racist. The classes I have previously taken at LSU forced me to view the criminal justice system as a failed institution and Eric Holder’s interview in VICE - Fixing The System solidified that ideology. The system is man-made, created by people in power, and imposed on society, so of course there will be implicit biases. The issue is that these internally held implicit biases shaped the system, leading the racial and class disparities. VICE – Fixing The System addressed heavily the outcomes that we see in today’s society based on these implicit biases. Additionally, this documentary focuses on the ways that mainly
Within the Federal Government there are three main branches; “the Legislative, the Judicial, and Executive” (Phaedra Trethan, 2013). They have the same basic shape and the same basic roles were written in the Constitution in 1787.
The Fourth Amendment states “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, 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.” Despite this right, multiple minorities across the country suffer at the hands of police officers through racial profiling; the singling out of a person or persons as the main suspect of a crime based on their race. Many people have also suffered the loss of a loved one because police believed the suspect to be a threat based on their races therefore the officers use their authority to take out the “threat”. Although racial profiling may make sense to police officers in the line of duty, through the eyes of the public and those affected by police actions, it is a form a racism that is not being confronted and is allowing unjust convictions and deaths.
First, there are many ways that people can be discriminated for example, their physical appearance, the appearance of their car, the way they talk. These are just some examples of reasons why police officers will pull someone aside or assume that they are up to something and investigate the matter. Is someone who is dressed in a hoodie and baggy jeans walking on the street late at night reason enough for an officer to do a stop and frisk? Many would answer that as no and claim that it is discrimination, which it is. Police even admit that “they go to the areas that are heavily populated by Latin Americans and African Americans because they know those areas will have the higher crime rate,” (Branch). Some times the definition of probable cause can be a little iffy when it comes to understanding exactly what a situation of probable cause is. The things that you can do if you were that person in a hoodie being pulled to the side by a police officer with an automatic frisk would be to deny them the right to search you without a warrant, ask them for a specific reason as to why they feel that they need to search you. A police officer must state to the reason as to why they are searching while possessing a probable cause that they have committed a crime. If none of this is done, then the police officer has violated the fourth amendment and should lose their badge or should be put back into the academy to go through the standards of being a police officer once again. If an officer does not understand the rules and limits of his job then he does not deserve to have power to be able to put someone behind
In New York there is a law called the Stop and Frisk this law promotes racial profiling because police are to confront a person they believe to be suspicious in order to stop or prevent a crime ("Stop And Frisk"). This type of search is limited and does not require a warrant. ("Stop And Frisk"). The police will stop and pat you down to check for any weapons or drugs that may be on the person in question to help deter criminal activity ("Stop And Frisk"). This law has received a lot of backlash since being instated because it is believed that this law has violated the rights of minority groups. Between January 2004 and June 2012 4.4 million stops took place 83% of the stopped population were minorities while 80% of those stops required no further action (Makarechi).
This essay will discuss the role of the criminal justice professional in serving both individual and societal needs. It will identify and describe at least three individual needs and three societal needs, in addition to explaining the role of the criminal justice professional in serving each of these needs. Illustrative examples will be provided for support.
JSB173: Understanding the Criminal Justice System Assessment 2: Reflective Journal. Topic: The role of police in the criminal justice system (CJS). Summary: The role of police in the CJS was the topic for this week, with Snr Constable Monique Duncan as a guest speaker.