Se habla Español | Wir sprechen Deutsch | Mówimy po polsku
Spanish Translation German Translation Polish Translation
Contact us for your initial consultation
847.577.8700
posted on 2/6/15

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers may stop someone if they have a reasonable suspicion that this person has committed, or is about to commit, a crime. The court also held that officers may frisk the detainee for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed.

The Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio affirmed that stop-and-frisk does not violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that police do not need to secure a warrant under such circumstances. However, a recent court case illustrated that stop-and-frisk – in practice – might contradict other constitutional guarantees.

Stop-and-Frisk in New York City

In that case, a federal judge ruled that the New York Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourteenth Amendment (which guarantees citizens equal protection and due process of law) because the practice amounted to racial profiling. The city ultimately dropped its appeal challenging the ruling and changed its policies in accordance with the court’s directive.

New York’s updated policies are not necessarily indicative of stop-and-frisk nationwide. In fact, when New York initially instituted the practice, the city experienced a significant drop in crime. Other cities, including here in Illinois, followed New York’s original lead. But these cities do not have an incentive to emulate New York’s current tactics – after all, the federal court that struck down the city’s stop-and-frisk policy does not have jurisdiction over these other police practices.

Consequences of Stop-and-Frisk

Stop-and-frisk is a controversial practice because there is no definitive standard for what constitutes a “reasonable suspicion.” An officer’s suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and “rational inferences from those facts.” But what is “articulable” and “rational” for one police officer might not be for another. Critics argue that this is a shaky foundation for stop-and-frisk to stand on, especially since minority suspects are more likely to be detained than white suspects. That is why the New York court determined that the policy is tantamount to racial profiling.

Note that stop-and-frisk can lead to an arrest and criminal charges. If the police discover contraband during the course of their frisk, that is probably enough to arrest the detainee. Keep in mind, though, that evidence obtained during an illegal stop-and-frisk is subject to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule prevents law enforcement from using illegally obtained evidence in a criminal prosecution.

Additional legal challenges to stop-and-frisk are likely forthcoming. In the meantime, it remains a legal practice in Illinois, as long as law enforcement adheres to constitutional standards.

Our Schaumburg, IL criminal defense attorneys are committed to protecting your Fourth Amendment rights. We will ensure that “fruits of the poisonous tree” (illegally obtained evidence) is not used against you in a court of law. Contact Glasgow & Olsson today for a consultation. We can assist those in the Chicago area.