When can the Police stop and frisk?

This question is about the law as it currently stands in the United States. I’d like to know what the most recent rulings are in these matters. If I could learn which actual court cases established the answers, that would be very helpful.

Under what circumstances can the police actually stop a person walking down the street?

Specifically, can they make a stop based on:

  • the fact that the person is in a high-crime area?

  • the fact that the person is walking in a dark area or trying to avoid being seen?

In any of the above circumstances, can the police insist on frisking the person?

If a person believes that he was stopped or frisked in a circumstance that’s not allowed, what options does he have for redress?

https://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/privacy/when-can-police-stop
Anytime they want, provided they can show you weren’t stopped just for skin color.

You’re being facetious, aren’t you.

barbitu9 is correct. They can talk to anyone they want, but they can’t “stop” you or “frisk” you without a reasonable suspicion.

I’m sure “reasonable suspicion” like “he seemed evasive under questioning” is easy to create any time the officer is challenged.

Read my link - apparently they can “stop and frisk” not just for weapons that might be a problem and a danger to the officer - but also for “drug containers”, i.e. "this feels like a baggie of something in your pocket, let’s have a look. "

Or google “stop and frisk” and see how many articles relate to the New York police cases about apparently discriminatory, quota driven stops of mainly young, male minorities in their own neighbourhoods. If this were blatantly illegal, this would not be happening so often and would have been shut down years ago.

So I’m only half facetious.

Inflation.

Copy and paste is your friend, people:

(from site linked in reply #2):

**What exactly is Reasonable Suspicion? **

Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person.

**What is a Stop? **

What constitutes a stop and frisk? Can one be stopped and not frisked? Or does one action always follow another? A stop is a seizure of a person. There are two types of stops: (1.) a show of force and (2.) a show of authority. With a show of force, an officer must physically lay hands on the person with the intent of detaining them. In a show of authority, the officer’s look, demeanor, and display of authority persuades a person to submit to authority. The key element in this type of stop is that the individual must submit to the show of authority, believe they have been seized, and feel compelled to cooperate.

A Justified Stop

A stop is justified if the suspect is exhibiting any combination of the following behaviors:[ol]
[li]Appears not to fit the time or place.[/li][li]Matches the description on a “Wanted” flyer.[/li][li]Acts strangely, or is emotional, angry, fearful, or intoxicated.[/li][li]Loitering, or looking for something.[/li][li]Running away or engaging in furtive movements.[/li][li]Present in a crime scene area.[/li][li]Present in a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering).[/li][/ol]**What is a Justified Frisk? **

A frisk is a type of search that requires a lawful stop. It involves contact or patting of the person’s outer clothing to detect if a concealed weapon is being carried. The frisk doesn’t necessarily always follow a stop. The law of frisk is based on the “experienced police officer” standard whereby an officer’s experience makes him more equipped to read into criminal behavior than the average layperson.
The purpose of a frisk is to dispel suspicions of danger to the officer and other persons. The frisk should only be used to detect concealed weapons or contraband. If other evidence, such as a suspected drug container, can be felt under the suspect’s clothing, it can be seized by the officer. This is called the “plain feel” doctrine. To pass the plain feel test, the item must have an immediately apparent character or quality of being contraband or evidence.

A frisk is justified under the following circumstances:[ol]
[li]Concern for the safety of the officer or of others.[/li][li]Suspicion the suspect is armed and dangerous.[/li][li]Suspicion the suspect is about to commit a crime where a weapon is commonly used.[/li][li]Officer is alone and backup has not arrived.[/li][li]Number of suspects and their physical size.[/li][li]Behavior, emotional state, and/or look of suspects.[/li][li]Suspect gave evasive answers during the initial stop.[/li][li]Time of day and/or geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves to justify frisk).[/li][/ol]

Thanks. Basically, anything the police want to use as an excuse works. How do you prove you weren’t evasive or had an unusual emotional state?

Just like being pulled over in a traffic stop. How do yuo prove you were not “weaving back and forth in the lane” or whatever justification the police use? (Unless they have a dashboard cam and you are in it the whole time.)

Or the cop happens to actually tell the truth. One of few times I had to go to court was on a case like this for a motion to suppress. I fully expected to lose and told my guy that it was basically a formality. But the cop actually testified to what happened and it didn’t meet the test.

Happy client.

The cops need RAS to detain you.

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) is the most relevant case. It is interesting because, had the stop been ruled an arrest as it probably should have been under precedent, the search would have been ruled inpermissible as there was no probably cause, only reasonable suspicion. So, Terry defines a less-than-arrest detention. The pat down is cursory and is intended only to provide for the officer’s safety while interviewing the subject.

RAS :confused:

Also, if I may…as a retired cop and now a professor of law, I’d like to suggest that not all, or even most, cops are “just looking for a way” to circumvent the rules or oppress people.

I’m sure that’s true, so I should give a little background. I did a LOT of motions to suppress, just not in person. I mainly did the supporting briefs. In NJ profiling was rampant for decades before anything was done about it and we knew what the standard operating procedure was on the part of the police. The bench did too, but not “officially” so it was like being on a bad acid trip over and over with same shitty record on the stereo.

reasonable articulable suspicion

and to** MD2000**,

of course an officer can make stuff up to justify what he did. He can also lie about giving your Miranda warnings, or deny he pocketed the $100,000 he found hidden under your bed.

As a former public defender, I would agree with this. I was often amazed how often a cop told the truth on the stand, even if shading it a bit would have removed the issue. Especially for more minor crimes (and if you didn’t go out of your way to piss him off) they generally let the chips fall where they may, and played it pretty straight. There were, of course, a few exceptions. But given how easy it would be to lie, it was nice to know that for the most part, they didn’t.

Agree, although not a LEO.
Plus, profiling has its virtues. <Glances at Pit, at GD … Nah, not interested.>

Not sure if this is relevant or not, but has anybody else heard of the saying, “You might beat the ‘rap’, but you don’t beat the ‘ride’.” ?

Only when Andy Summers has reasonable suspicion.

I’m reaznbly spectin’ you ain’t from round here, is ya boy? :dubious:

:wink:

Maine Justice. :smiley: