First, one factor that the court should weigh when looking at the government’s interest in public safety is “crime prevention and detection.” United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 228 (1985). Crime prevention and detection is directly related to public safety because when crime is detected, it can be prevented by apprehending criminals and getting dangerous criminals off the street.The interest in capturing criminals is “particularly strong when the criminal activity involves a threat to public safety.” United States v. Moran, 503 F.3d 1135, 1142 (10th Cir. 2007).When looking at the nature of the offense, the court should also look at the crime and pay “particular attention to the potential for ongoing or repeated danger . . . and any risk of escalation.” Id. at 1141.Therefore, the public is safer and less likely to become victims of crime with less dangerous criminals on the street.
Because apprehending criminals is involved in crime prevention and detection, another reason courts have allowed a Terry Stop to be performed is to prevent suspects from fleeing and never finding them again or for them to remain at large while posing a threat to the public. The Supreme Court reasoned that where “police have been unable to locate a person suspected of involvement in a past crime, the ability to briefly stop that person, ask questions, or check identification in the absence of probable cause promotes the strong government interest in solving crimes and bringing offenders to justice.” Id. at 229.
Second, another factor the court should weigh when looking at the government’s interest in public safety is “nature” of the offense.United States v. Grigg, 498 F.3d 1070, 1078 (9th Cir. 2007).Public safety is related to the nature of the offe...
... middle of paper ...
...ed. (R. at 10:6.) In addition, the Defendant was not pulled over until April 2nd after 12pm, which was at least a day and a half since the possible computer trespass had occurred. (R. at 11:7.) Also, in this case, the misdemeanor crime of computer trespass is not threatening to anyone’s safety, and if the information has already been obtained, it is unlikely the suspect will repeat the offense or that the offense will escalate.
There were also less invasive alternatives that would have better served Dansby’s personal interest like there were in Grigg, such as running the license plate and contacting the person registered to the vehicle. SeeGrigg, 498 F.3d at 1076. Therefore, the initial stop of the Defendant violated the Fourth Amendment because the stop would not have promoted the government’s interest enough to justify violating the Defendant’s individual liberty.
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
In 1990, there was a total of 2,245 murders in New York, but over the past nine years, this total has been less than 600 (NYCLU). However, there has not been evident proof that the stop-and-frisk procedure is the reason of the declination of the crime rate. Indeed, stop-and-frisk contributes to some downturn of crime but the number is not high enough for the citizen and police to rely on. Specifically, only 3% of 2.4 million stops result in conviction. Some 2% of those arrests – or 0.1% of all stops – led to a conviction for a violent crime. Only 2% of arrests led to a conviction for possession of a weapon (Gabatt, A., 2013). In other words, the decrease in crime due to stop-and-frisk is mostly due to the discovery of possessed of weapons. Therefore, stop-and- frisk is not an effective procedure to use because it does not represent a huge impact in people’s safety (Gabatt, A., 2013). The author has done research about how police base their initiation towards the procedure of stop-and-frisk. Researchers have found that stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention strategy that gives a police officer the permission to stop a person based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and frisk based on “reasonable suspicion” that the person is armed and dangerous. This controversy is mainly because of racial profiling. “Reasonable suspicion” was described by the court as “common sense” (Avdija, A., 2013). Although, the
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).
Quinton, P., Bland, N., Miller, Joel (2000) Paper 130: Police stops, Decision-Making, and Practice. London: Home Office
...e Court would also fine Mr. Dickerson guilty of contraband. However, after reading the ruling, I understand how easily and differently the Fourth Amendment may be understood and withheld. Another good point was proven in the “Mapp vs. Ohio” case where law enforcement did indeed violate the Fourth Amendment. Interpretation of this amendment was apparent back in the 1760’s where they had cases based on the freedom of citizens. The Fourth Amendment is a very creative amendment that gives the people the right of freedom and to protect their own properties. As a future law enforcement officer, I chose this amendment to gather information on the proper procedures to obtain a search warrant and understand how improperly obtaining a search warrant may change an outcome of a case. Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment may be perceived differently in a court of law.
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that individuals have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and impacts, against absurd searches and seizures, yet the issue close by here is whether this additionally applies to the ventures of open fields and of articles in plain view and whether the fourth correction gives insurance over these also. With a specific end goal to reaffirm the courts' choice on this matter I will be relating their choices in the instances of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which bargain straightforwardly with the inquiry of whether an individual can have sensible desires of protection as accommodated in the fourth correction concerning questions in an open field or in plain view.
The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule has undergone a harsh and controversial development. This article not only critically analyzes the numerous alternatives and slight modifications to the exclusionary rule but the advanced by courts and commentators as well, (Schroeder, 1361). The article also puts emphasis on the alternative route of police policy making and a means to control official misconduct and violations of citizens rights. The exclusionary rule is one of the most significant defense stance of the fourth amendment. ITs establishment has created a wide spread of protection against violations of citizens rights.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
Pratt, T. C. (2008). Rational Choice theory, criminal control policy, and criminology relevance. Policy essay, 43-52.
Situational crime prevention in some crimes is more successful than that of developmental. Situational Crime prevention takes an approach that the victim is responsible for implementing measures to protect themselves whilst developmental needs programs to be undergone by the offender. The two prevention strategies will be discussed in relation to burglary.
McCormick, C. (September 17,2013). Crime Matters: The Criminological Imagination and Public Criminology. Public Lecture. Brantford.
Time may pass and personal morals may change, but one of the strengths of the United States of America is its unwavering dedication to justice. Throughout time, this country’s methods and laws have grown and adapted, but the basis of the law enforcement’s work has remained the same: the safety and interest of the people.
Approaches to crime prevention have emerged over time and are demonstrated in different solutions, practices, and policies executed by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community. Some of the dominant approaches to crime prevention currently used by law enforcement, courts, corrections, family, and community are: situational crime prevention, crime prevention through social development, crime prevention through environmental design, community crime prevention, reduction of recidivism, and policing. In this essay, I will compare and contrast the dominant approaches used for crime prevention and analyze which approaches are most effective. I will identify and apply at least four approaches used in law enforcement, legislation, courts, corrections, family, and community within the crime prevention programs.
Being able to protect one’s self and family is a right that everybody should be able to carry out without any hindrance from any government entity. Yet in this country “the land of the free” we still have laws that do just that. It is a common misconception that the Police are there to protect the public from the criminal element. This was decided in a landmark ...