skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 69105 Find in a Library
Title: STOP AND FRISK RECONSIDERED
Journal: LEGAL POINTS  Issue:103  Dated:(1980)  Pages:COMPLETE ISSUE
Corporate Author: International Assoc of Chiefs of Police
Bureau of Governmental Relations and Legal Counsel
United States of America
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 4
Sponsoring Agency: International Assoc of Chiefs of Police
Arlington, VA 22201
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS EDUCATIONAL AID FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS IS A REVIEW OF SUPREME COURT 'STOP AND FRISK' RULINGS IN TERRY V. OHIO, ADAMS V. WILLIAMS, AND YBARRA V. ILLINOIS.
Abstract: TERRY V. OHIO (1968) PERMITS THE FORCIBLE DETENTION OF A SUSPECT, WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER REASONABLY BELIEVES CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING. THIS DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTS A NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND SUCH STOPS ARE TO BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE THE OFFICERS CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR SUSPICIONS WERE BASED UPON REASONABLE INFERENCES DRAWN FROM SPECIFIC, ARTICULABLE, FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS. ALTHOUGH TERRY V. OHIO PERMITS LIMITED WEAPONS FRISKS BASED UPON A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT A SUSPECTED INDIVIDUAL IS ARMED, TEMPORARY DETENTIONS BASED UPON UNSUPPORTABLE SUSPICIONS OR 'HUNCHES' WILL NOT BE UPHELD. IN ADAMS V. WILLIAMS THE COURT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF A WEAPONS AND NARCOTICS SEIZURE EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER INVOLVED RELIED ON AN INFORMANT'S TIP, RATHER THAN PERSONAL OBSERVATION. IN REFUSING TO UPHOLD THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IN YBARRA V. ILLINOIS (BECAUSE THE ARRESTING OFFICER HAD BEEN UNABLE TO ARTICULATE FACTUAL BASIS), THE COURT REAFFIRMED ITS COMMITMENT TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AS A MEANS OF DETERRING POLICE MISCONDUCT AND MAINTAINING JUDICIAL INTEGRITY. THE COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE POLICE, IN EXECUTING A WARRANT AUTHORIZING A SEARCH OF AN ESTABLISHMENT AND A NAMED EMPLOYEE, MAY NOT SEARCH THE ESTABLISHMENT'S PATRONS WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, AND MAY NOT EMPLOY STOP AND FRISK OR PROTECTIVE PAT-DOWN PROCEDURE WITHOUT AN ARTICULABLE BASIS IN FACT FROM WHICH IT COULD REASONABLY BE INFERRED THAT SUCH INDIVIDUALS WERE ARMED.
Index Term(s): Police legal limitations; Police legal training; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=69105

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.