Reforming Stop-and-Frisk
This assignment requires students to critically examine the constitutional foundations, empirical research, and contemporary legal debates surrounding stop-and-frisk, with an emphasis on enhancing constitutional compliance, community trust, and police accountability.
Memo Requirements & Structure (3-5 Pages)
Background and Legal Context Summarize Terry v. Ohio and Illinois v. Wardlow, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of the legal principles that define and regulate stop-and-frisk practices.
Explain how these rulings shape law enforcement discretion and constitutional limitations under the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis of Current Issues
Critically assess how police discretion, racial profiling, and/or community perceptions influence public trust in stop-and-frisk policies.
Empirical Research Integration
Synthesize key findings from Carmichael et al. (2021) and Huff (2021) on police behavior during stops in your analysis of the current issues.
Incorporate at least one additional peer-reviewed article to strengthen the analysis and provide a broader research-based perspective on the issue.
Policy Recommendations
Propose specific, actionable reforms that address the identified issues while balancing public safety and constitutional rights.
Justify recommendations with legal precedent, empirical evidence, and policy considerations to demonstrate feasibility and effectiveness.
Concept Map Reforming Stop-and-Frisk
Incorporate a visual representation of your analysis by utilizing a concept map or logic model. The visual representation should demonstrate an understanding of the policy’s structure, actors, and outcomes. You may integrate your concept map in text or as an appendix. Reforming Stop-and-Frisk
-
What is the background and legal context of Terry v. Ohio and Illinois v. Wardlow, how do they shape law enforcement discretion and constitutional limitations under the Fourth Amendment?,
-
How do police discretion racial profiling and community perceptions influence public trust in stop-and-frisk policies?,
-
What key findings from Carmichael et al. (2021), Huff (2021), and at least one additional peer-reviewed article inform our understanding of police behavior during stops?,
-
What specific, actionable policy reforms can address the identified issues while balancing public safety and constitutional rights?,
-
How can a concept map visually represent the policy’s structure, actors, and outcomes?,
Comprehensive Answer (General Policy Memo Draft)
Background and Legal Context
Terry v. Ohio (1968) established that police officers may briefly detain individuals based on “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity and conduct a limited pat-down for weapons if safety is at risk. This decision created the constitutional foundation for stop-and-frisk but required that actions be grounded in specific, articulable facts rather than vague hunches.
Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) expanded Terry’s framework by holding that unprovoked flight in a high-crime area can contribute to reasonable suspicion. The case reinforced police discretion but also highlighted the tension between officer judgment and individual constitutional protections.
Together, these rulings define the balance between law enforcement authority and Fourth Amendment safeguards. They allow flexibility in policing while requiring that discretion not cross into arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.
Analysis of Current Issues
Controversy over stop-and-frisk arises from three interrelated issues:
-
Police discretion: Officers have significant latitude in determining what constitutes reasonable suspicion. This flexibility, while operationally useful, risks inconsistency and abuse.
-
Racial profiling: Studies repeatedly show disproportionate targeting of Black and Latino communities. Even when stops do not lead to arrests or recoveries, the experience can reinforce perceptions of systemic bias.
