What the heck is this "Stop & Frisk" stuff?

I think people are a tad bit confused on this whole “stop & frisk” thing going on in NYC. So I figured (after getting like bazillion questions about it), that I’d try and explain it a bit.

While this may shock of those liberals and police haters out there, the majority of police officers (note I don’t say all, because I’ll freely admit there are some knuckleheads out there) don’t randomly pick people sitting, walking or driving and say “There’s a [insert race here] guy/girl. I have to stop them.”  Far from it. We look for a reason. Take your pick. Maybe they committed a traffic violation. Maybe they are behaving in a manner that is suspicious. Maybe they are in an area known for criminal activity. Maybe they look like a suspect we are looking for.

So we stop them. We cops are strange like that. We look for people, vehicles and activity that seem out of place. And then we investigate it, which is perfectly legal for us to do. This was set forth in a decision in Terry v. Ohio, which was made by the United States Supreme Court in 1968. That case set forth the principle of the “stop & frisk.” A more appropriate name for such activity is an “investigative stop,” as its purpose is, when performed properly & legally, to investigate possible criminal activity.

Here is the part where I think everyone is getting confused. There are two parts to an investigative stop.

The first part is the “stop.” Under the Terry v. Ohio decision, the police are allowed to stop a person if the police have reasonable suspicion that the person is committing, had committed or is about to commit a crime. Such a stop is allowed so that the police can identify the person and investigate if a crime is, was or about to be committed.

The second part is the “frisk.” If during the stop, the police have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed then the police are allowed to “pat down” the outer clothing of the person for their safety.

The key (if you haven’t picked up on it yet) is reasonable suspicion, which is generally defined as being a standard of proof less that of probable cause but more than a mere hunch which is based on specific, articulatable facts.

What does all this legal gobbledygook this mean you ask?

Well in short, the police, if they reasonable suspect you are engaged in criminal activity, can stop you and investigate that. And if they reasonably suspect you are armed with a weapon, then they can check pat you down to check for weapons. So basically sometimes you can be stopped, sometimes you can be searched. Confused yet?

It boils down to if the police reasonably suspect a person is, was or about to commit a crime and if they reasonably suspect the person is armed as to what part of an investigative stop can be performed.

Can the use of investigative stops be abused? You bet. Has it been abused? Honestly? Probably, because like all other segments of society, even law enforcement has its share of ass clowns who think that they are above the law. But whether you, as a reader, choose to believe it or not, the majority of us in law enforcement seek to remove those people from our ranks for the good of society & our chosen profession while protecting your rights.

So I guess my point is that investigative stops are a tool that can be used to prevent and catch criminals, and like any other tool does have the ability to be used improperly, but that arbitrarily turning into something bad is not the answer.

Of course I am only a patrol officer and not a lawyer, politician or reporter. What could I possibly know?

Stay safe my friends...and wear your vests!

STC