646 666 9601 [email protected]

A look at the history of “stop and frisk” and the conditions that must be met in order for its usage to be legitimate.

When Can the Police Stop and Frisk You on the Street?

The “stop and frisk” policy in the United States “The rule arose from the wording of the Fourth Amendment governing unreasonable searches and seizures.

The policy empowers cops to stop and “pat down” suspects “anyone they think is committing, has done, or is about to commit a crime Their suspicion is what allows them to stop you and search you.

The present stop and frisk tactic has been lawful since 1968, when the Supreme Court decided in Terry v. Ohio to provide police officers the authority to briefly hold and search someone they think has done or is about to do something criminal.

Since then, all 50 states have implemented this rule in some form or another.

Unfortunately, rather of weeding out criminality, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New York finds that 9 out of 10 New Yorkers who have been stopped and frisked were innocent. Some individuals consider stop and frisk to be a kind of harassment.

When Can a Police Officer Stop You?

If a police officer believes you are engaging in unlawful conduct, they have the ability to stop you whether you are walking, driving, bicycling, boating, or doing anything else.

“During a halt, you are not arrested, but you are not free to go.” “Tod Spodek, managing partner of Spodek Law Group, adds.

“When an officer stops your automobile, the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that someone in the car committed a crime or probable cause to suspect the driver committed a traffic infraction.””

What Is a “Reasonable Stop?””

It is usually one that does not take an unduly lengthy time. Or, as the Supreme Court decided in Rodriguez v. United States, “exceeding the time required to resolve the subject for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s protection against arbitrary seizures.”

For example, if a vehicle is stopped for a routine traffic infraction, the driver cannot be held for more than the time it takes to issue a ticket. That would not be logical.

But what constitutes a justifiable halt? What are the appropriate reasons?

If you are:

A near match to the description of a wanted suspect

Being present near a criminal scene

Present in a high-crime neighbourhood and showing other troubling traits

Running or making evasive moves

Loitering in a place or seeking for something

acting abnormally, such as being furious, afraid, or too emotional


Out of place in a particular location or at a certain time of day

When Can a Police Officer Frisk?

When an officer believes that a stopped individual has the potential to hurt them with a weapon, the officer has the authority to perform a search, sometimes known as “frisk.” “the person to check

When frisked, your outer clothing is rapidly patted down to detect whether you’re carrying or hiding a weapon that may be used to hurt the officer.

However, you can only be frisked in particular conditions, which include:

There is a chance that a cop or onlookers may be hurt.

Officer is alone and without support.

Officers are outnumbered by a group that has been halted.

People in the group look upset or are acting abnormally.

You provide evasive responses to queries.

Suspicion that you are armed

Suspicion that you are going to conduct a crime with a weapon

In combination with other variables, the time of day or geographic area

What Does “Reasonable Suspicion” Mean?

To stop you, an officer must have “reasonable suspicion, based on observed behaviour and/or facts.” “Spodek states. If you match the description of a recent burglary suspect, for example, or were spotted running a red light, that would normally be deemed reasonable suspicion.

Police have no “probable cause” if there is no indication that unlawful action has occurred or is going to occur “to put a stop to you That is, they have no reason to accuse you of anything unlawful.

Although stop and frisk was intended to prevent crime, it has also been proven to intimidate law-abiding persons, particularly young people of colour, and may be increasing the rift between law enforcement personnel and those they have vowed to protect.