Question

Should “stop and frisk” continue to be an exception to the laws requiring a search warrant? Why or why not? How does “stop and frisk” compare to the other types of warrantless searches and arrests?

Two references.

Answer 1

Police may arrest a suspect as long as there is a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act and the officer may articulate facts that lead to that suspicion. There, the evidence needed for "reasonable suspicion" is something above mere suspicion, but is lower than the level required for likely cause. If there is reason to believe that the person can be armed and dangerous, the police can also put the suspect at risk. An officer has to actually lay hands on the individual with the intent to arrest them with a show of force. The look, posture, and display of authority of the officer persuades a person to submit to authority in a show of authority. The key element in this kind of stop is that the individual has to submit to the authority show, believe they have been seized, and feel compelled to cooperate.

The other types of warrantless searches are:

Vehicular Searches- In the early days of the car, the Court established an exception for automobile searches, ruling that cars can be searched without warrants in Carroll v. United States if the officer conducting the search is likely to believe the vehicle contains contraband. The Court clarified that if it took time to obtain a warrant, the mobility of vehicles would allow them to move quickly from jurisdiction. Originally, the Court narrowed the scope of Carroll, holding inadmissible a parked car's warrantless seizure merely because it is mobile, and suggesting that vehicles can only be stopped when stationary and moving reasonably at the same time. If the police stop a vehicle, then both the passengers of the vehicle and their driver are deemed to have been seized from the moment the vehicle comes to a halt, and both the passengers and the driver can question the constitutionality of the stop. Similarly, a police officer can frisk the driver and any passengers he fairly suspects "might be armed and potentially dangerous"

Vessel Searches- Not only is the warrant provision inaplicable for short vessel stops, but also none of the protections applicable to vehicle stops on less than probable cause are appropriate predictions for vessel stops. Through law originating from an act of the First Congress, the boarding was approved and therefore had "an exceptional historical record" with a presumption of constitutionality.

Border Searches- The searches carried out at the border, pursuant to the sovereign's long-standing right to protect himself by stopping and inspecting persons and property entering into that state, are fair simply because they take place at the border, should by now entail no prolonged demonstration."Authorized by the First Congress, customs searches under such circumstances do not require war.

Website on Criminal Law and Social Studies