School To Prison Pipeline Essay

School To Prison Pipeline Essay
The School–to–Prison Pipeline is a "national trend wherein children are funneled out of public
schools and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems" ("School–to–Prison Pipeline"). This
phenomenon brings children into the juvenile justice system at a very young age. An article
published in the journal Urban Education explains that, "The school–to–prison pipeline contributes
to the atmosphere of increased surveillance of schools including police presence in schools, zero–
tolerance policies, physical restraint tactics, and automatic consequence policies, resulting in
suspensions from school" (Martin, Beese 2015). By increasing police presence in schools, children
are more likely to be searched, questioned, or targeted by police than they would be without police
present. And as a result, "children are far more likely to be subject to school–based arrests–the
majority of which are for nonviolent offenses, such as disruptive behavior–than they were a
generation ago" ("School–to–Prison Pipeline"). For example, if a child was misbehaving in class in
a school that had a police presence, they could possibly get arrested and sent to prison. But if a child
was acting the same way in a school that did not have any police presence, they would not be
arrested. Police would most likely be present in a school in an urban environment or poor
neighborhood because more crime occurs in urban and poor places, so in theory, by placing police in
schools, they would be preventing any crimes
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Probable Cause And Reasonable Suspicion : A Presumption Of...
Reasonable suspicions are a presumption that a crime has been or will be committed. Reasonable
Suspicions is based on the fact that is informed by an officer training and his or her experience of
the law. I believe that Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch but not as important as a probable
cause. Probable cause is almost simulator to Reasonable Suspicions but, the Probable cause is a
logical belief, that is supported by the facts, that a crime has been, or is being committed.
The difference between the terms probable cause and Reasonable suspicion is that Probable cause:
means that it is hardcore evidence. The evidence for Probable cause is concrete in a crime that has
been committed and Reasonable suspicion is exposed to larger interpretation Reasonable suspicion
is used as an expression that is often used as an excuse in an investigation apprehensive behavior
when a crime may or may not have been committed.
The law enforcement officers will only need reasonable suspicion to stop an individual so they can
question them about their suspicious behaviors, they also will search the suspects for a weapon that
can cause bodily harm to them or to themselves. Before the Law Enforcement can search the
suspects house that's when Probable cause come into place. They must obtain a search warrant
before they can search the suspect property and they must have a very good of searching the
defendant's property. There are six different ways that an officer does not have to have a

Supreme Court Case Terry v. Ohio
In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was
violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According
to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry's actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had
enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in
favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he
feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to
stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to
argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take
advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and
frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law
enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for
weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot
trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it
can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify
and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

Mapp Vs. Ohio State
Mapp vs. Ohio State(1961) Background: In the Mapp vs Ohio state court case, the issue disputed
was when the appellant Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing "obscene" materials after an
illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. During the year of 1961, Ohio police were looking
for a criminal accused of a bombing and had been told that he was hiding in Dollree Mapp 's house.
Police acted quickly and came to her house but when she didn 't answer the door, police officers
forced themselves inside. Dollree demanded to see the police 's search warrant once having spoken
to her attorney but police didn't have one so they held a piece of paper to disguise that it was a
warrant when it really wasn't. Dollree grabbed the paper and when trying to read it, she was then
handcuffed on the ground and police continued to search her house (Landmark cases). During the
search, officers found pornography and other materials that were against Ohio State law in her
basement. As a result, Dollree was arrested, found guilty, and sentenced to 1 to 7 years in the Ohio
Women 's Reformatory. Dollree felt that justice was unfair so she consulted with her attorney. "She
appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression" (Oyez). Dollree's lawyers argued to
the Supreme Court of Ohio that she should never have been brought to trial because the material
evidence resulted from an illegal (warrantless) search and how it was illegally obtained. "In its
ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio

The Importance Of Freedom Of Speech
hoose to, this does not, however, mean freedom from consequences. One is still allowed backlash
for publishing or saying dangerous, reckless, and or deceitful things.
The role the government has taken on freedom of speech is one of basing your right to free speech
based on the effects of what you have said, in accordance with time manner and place, which is
shown by the case Brandenburg v Ohio. In Brandenburg v Ohio, Brandenburg is a leader of the Ku
Klux Klan who made a speech which was deemed harmful by The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act,
which stated speeches that contained "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism
as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," to be unlawful, and was swiftly
convicted under this act. Brandenburg appealed under the idea that the Statute prohibited public
speech that advocated certain violent activities, and thus violates Brandenburg's right to free speech
under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court
decided that the state had indeed violated free speech by being overly broad and infringing on the
constitution due to its two broad questions. These two questions are as follows. Firstly, speech can
be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action". Secondly, if it is
"likely to incite or produce such action.". Since the court ruled that The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism
Act overstepped its boundaries it was overturned. Thus, due to

Earl Warren Served As Chief Justice
Earl Warren served as Chief Justice in the the Supreme Court replacing Fred M. Vinson as Chief
Justice after his death in 1953. In the period from 1961 to 1969, Warren Court presided over the
criminal justice system in the United States, using the 4th and 14th Amendment to extend
constitutional protections to all courts in every State. This is known as the "nationalization" of the
Bill of Rights. In these years, cases pertaining to the right to legal counsel, confessions, searches,
and the treatment of juvenile criminals all happen during. The Warren Court 's modification in the
criminal justice system began with the case of Mapp v. Ohio, the first of several important cases in
which it reassess the role of the 14th Amendment as it applied to State judicial systems. Mapp v.
Ohio (1961) was a case in criminal procedures where as the United States Supreme Court came to
the conclusion that the evidence confiscated in the case of Dollree Mapp was in violation of the
Fourth Amendment; which protects her against unreasonable searches and seizures in the state of
Ohio. According to The Supreme Court case No. 367 U.S 643 (U.S 1961), Dollree Mapp resided in
Cleveland, Ohio with her small daughter. On May 23rd 1957, police received an anonymous tip by
phone that a man accused of suspicious acts was hiding out in the home of Mapp. The alleged man
was wanted for questioning in connection with a recent bombing and that there was a large amount
of paraphernalia being hidden in the

What Violates The Fourth Amendment?
What Violates the Fourth Amendment? "Unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated, and
no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." – Amendment IV The
most controversial aspect of the fourth amendment is the debate over what constitutes as a
legitimate search. Since the amendment's addition to the constitution on December 15, 1791,
citizens have questioned police action. The case of United States vs. Jacobsen states that "A seizure
of property occurs when the government meaningfully interferes with a person's possessory
interest." With this great debate in effect, a theory was introduced called ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
However, before this case, the case of Terry vs. Ohio also helped set the investigatory bar. Terry vs.
Ohio involved the Supreme Court's decision in deciding whether it was of reason for a police officer
to stop a person and search him, when less than probable cause for an arrest was present. The
consequences presented in Terry vs. Ohio were put forth but examination of the "reasonable
balancing test." By doing so, a balancing test that has a wider variety of causes is now in effect. In
this landmark case, it was held that policemen are permitted to perform a "stop and frisk" pat down,
if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is presently dangerous and carrying a deadly weapon.
This "stop and frisk" method was later extended to vehicle arrests as well. After the case of Terry vs
Ohio, this wider variety of the balancing test came into effect the case of Louisiana vs. Morgan. In
this case, Johnny Morgan was observed walking at a rather quick pace, late at night, at a poorly lit
area, by a policeman named Sergeant Brown. After realizing that it was a deputy watching him,
Morgan fled and was apprehended by Brown. After noticing the man sweating and seeming to grow
nervous, Brown found what looked to be a crack pipe. Crack cocaine was also discovered in the
defendant's pockets. Morgan was arrested a hauled off to jail where he was charged with possession
of

The Trial No Search Warrant
Facts of the Case:
Mapp was arrested for possessing obscene pictures, after police illegally obtained them. At the time
Ohio had a statute that made the possession of obscene literature criminal. At Mapp's trial no search
warrant was admitted into evidence, however she was still convicted. The Court citing Wolf vs
Colorado found that evidence obtained from an unlawful search and seizure is admissible in
criminal prosecution. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the judgment and
remanded the case to the Court. "unlawful searches and seizure" "right to privacy"
Issues:
Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting "unreasonable searches and
seizures" admissible as evidence in criminal ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
However, the concurring opinion gave by Justice Hugo Black stated that the fourth amendment ban
against unreasonable searches and seizures along with the fifth amendment's ban against forced
self–incrimination defends the exclusionary rule.
Another concurring opinion was made by Justice William Douglas believed that the officers had
violated Mapp's "right to privacy".
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Harlan, Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker dissented. Justice Harlan wrote the dissenting
opinion. In his dissent, Justice Harlan argued that the majority confronted the wrong issue in its
decision. Because Mapp was convicted under an Ohio statute criminalizing the possession of
obscene material, Justice Harlan believed that the "new and pivotal issue" was whether this statute
"is consistent with the rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the
Fourteenth Amendment.(Mapp vs Ohio)" He concluded that the majority had ignored the principles
of judicial restraint and stare decisis, and had "'reached out'" to consider the exclusionary rule issue.
According to Justice Harlan, this was a First Amendment case and not an appropriate case for
extending the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule to the states. He also concluded that it was
wrong to impose the exclusionary rule, designed for the federal criminal process, on the states
which, in his view, bore quite

The Stop And Frisk Policy
The stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for
the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or
any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant.
This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the
1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street
Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well–known hot spots and areas with high
crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities. In
the 2000s, the number of those "Stopped and Frisked" increased drastically due to the law
enforcement agencies and departments in New York City forced to meet their COMPSTAT numbers
for the given time. COMPSTAT is a system used by the NYPD that collects data about local crimes
and the measurements to take control of the issues. Weekly meetings are coordinated to discuss the
findings. Clark (2015) stated that, a survey conducted showed that it was more pressure and stress
on officers to conduct stops after COMPSTAT became active. The stop and frisk procedure is known
to be more used toward those of the African American, Latino and minority races rather than those
of the Caucasian race. A person is protected from unreasonable search and seizures under the Fourth
Amendment. Many contested

When It Comes To The Fourth Amendment And Searching A...
When it comes to the Fourth Amendment and searching a person's car or their person, there are a
few factors to take into consideration. In order for an officer to search an individual's car, they must
have consent, otherwise the search is unreasonable and whatever evidence seized could be
inadmissible in the court of law. However, it is possible to conduct a search without consent and
seize evidence without a warrant but there ought to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The
two differ in the sense that reasonable suspicion is based off past experiences and expertise.
Probable cause is needed for a search to take place; conversely if there is no probable cause but an
officer has enough reasonable suspicion, they still are allowed to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
On the other hand, in Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), if an officer can readily identify an object
from a pat down, they can use their discretion and experience and retrieve it if they know it to be
true. If they are unsure and take it, whatever was seized is inadmissible in court. In legal terms, this
is known as the plain feel doctrine. This allows a police officer to seize objects during a legitimate
pat–down search if by plain feel he reasonably believes it to be contraband. Just because the plain
feel doctrine has been established does not granted officers the right to touch, it simply permits an
officer to interpret tactile sensations to identify an object during a pat down (Poulin, 1997 pg. 23).
There is a strong correlation between the Fourth Amendment and racial profiling. I asked a police
officer what they believed was the main reason for a lawsuit against an officer and they said
violations in regards to the Fourth Amendment followed by failure to act. Take the United States v.
Brignoni–Ponce case for instance. A police officer pulled over a drive that looked to be Mexican
because he believed them to be an illegal immigrant. The problem was that officers were roving the
border and stopping individuals for no reason other than to see if they were illegal immigrants. The
Fourth Amendment held that a patrolman is prohibited to crowd the Mexican border just to stop and

The Importance Of Personal Privacy
Warrantless searches of a student's person raise significant legal questions. Unlike locker searches, it
cannot be asserted that there is a lower expectation of privacy. Students have a legitimate
expectation of privacy in the contents of their pockets and their person. The Fifth Circuit noted:
"The Fourth Amendment applies with its fullest vigor against any intrusion on the human body." In
personal searches, not only is it necessary to have reasonable cause to search, but also the search
itself must be reasonable. Reasonableness is assessed in terms of the specific facts and
circumstances of a case.
Metal Detectors. Metal detectors are used in airports and many public buildings, but their use does
constitute a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. General scanning of students with metal
detectors is only minimally intrusive on students' Fourth Amendment rights when weighed against
school officials' interest in providing a safe school environment.
Metal detectors became more commonplace in school environments in the 1990s causing their
constitutionality to be challenged. However, courts soon clarified that individualized suspicion was
not needed for schools to use of metal detectors. For example, the Pennsylvania high court upheld a
general, uniform search of all students for weapons as they entered the high school building; each
student's personal belongings were searched, and then a security officer scanned each student with a
metal detector. The court concluded that the

How To Write An Argumentative Essay On Stop And Frisk
In the first presidential debate, one of the many issues touched upon was stop–and–frisk. This
policing method used throughout the 2000s by New York City mayors was the subject of an intense
exchange between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. However, neither candidate had any specifics
on the topic (a disappointing trend throughout the night), leaving the American people in the dark.
Well, prepare for the lightbulb to be switched on as I enlighten you on stop–and–frisk.
Trump is the one who originally touched on stop–and–frisk. In the middle of a response to a
question about racial divide in America (a topic for another day), Trump said "Now, whether or not
in a place like Chicago you do stop and frisk, which worked very well...," explaining how he would
lower crime. Lester Holt, the debate moderator, followed up by telling Trump that stop–and–frisk
was ruled unconstitutional because it discriminated against people of color. Hillary then jumped in
with "Stop–and–frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
To stay consistent with what has been the general theme of this election, that is, fact–checking, let's
fact–check Clinton's claims that stop–and–frisk was ineffective, racist, and unconstitutional.
Stop–and–frisk is when a police officer has "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been, is being,
or is about to be committed and stops the possible suspect and frisks them, checking for illegal
substances and weapons. Now, let's look at Clinton's three claims, one–by–one. She called stop–
and–frisk ineffective. Spoiler alert; stop–and–frisk was highly effective and helped lower crime in
New York city. Stop–and–frisk was part of proactive

Mapp vs Ohio Essay
On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss
Mapp's residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and
her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police
knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn't open the
door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers
advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next
few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of
the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
In the basement they found a chest that contained an amount of pornography. The pornography was
a few magazines, some photos, and artworks which depicted nudity. This being illegal in the state of
Ohio at the time, being lewd and lascivious material, Mapp was arrested and charged with having
obscene materials. In the first trial she was given, the prosecution did not provide the search warrant
that was used. The prosecution also failed to state why the warrant was not submitted, In fact the
prosecution avoided the subject almost entirely. There was a reasonable belief that there was never a
search warrant made in the first place, However the courts convicted her guilty anyways, on the
grounds that she had broken the law whether the evidence was legally seized or illegally seized. The
court also determined that the evidence had not been taken from the defendant's person by use of
brutal force against the defendant. They also stated that there was no law in the state of Ohio that
prevented the use of illegally seized evidence, which was also stated in wolf v Colorado, In which
the court held that in a prosecution in a state for a state crime the fourteenth amendment doesn't
prevent the use of evidence obtained by an illegal search and seizure. She was then sentenced to a
women's reformatory for a year, where she began to make her appeal to the Supreme Court. The
case was argued in front of the Supreme Court on March 29 1961. Miss Mapp's attorney A.L.

Stop And Frisk Research Paper
Stop and frisk has two components that define the stop element as well as the frisk element. The
stop element is defined as when a law enforcement officer briefly detains an individual, and the
officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur,
and ask questions of the individual regarding a preliminary investigation and excludes the
requirement of probable cause (Bethel, 2015). Furthermore, the frisk element may be conducted if
the officer has reasonable suspicion the individual has a weapon, and is performed as a limited pat–
down search of the outer clothing on the individual detained by the officer (Bethel, 2015). If a
weapon is discovered, the officer is authorized to conduct a more in–depth investigation. ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The same applications are among law enforcement agencies across the nation, however, every law
enforcement agency shares the same mission to protect and to serve it's jurisdiction. In my humble
opinion, the scope for stop and frisk is an essential part of law enforcement's goal of keeping their
communities safe and protecting the citizens and it's properties. Where there's smoke, there's more
than likely going to be a fire that started the smoke or a source of heat that initiated the smoke. The
bureaucratic red tape has smothered a substantial amount of police tactics in the last several years
and common sense allows us to notice a serious decrease in respect towards law enforcement as well
as limited actions law enforcement can apply to situations because they appear too militarized or
overkill. For example, it was due to stop and frisk that allowed an officer to stop and frisk a suspect
named Wayne Williams in Atlanta, Georgia, after the officer heard a splash in a river nearby and
observed Williams driving off a bridge that went over the waterway. The officer was able to initiate
a stop and frisk, that led to the discovery of a murdered victim and identified the suspect because of
this tactic (Marcou, 2010). This is only one of many incidents of how this tactic is critical for law
enforcement to apply towards their overall goal of keeping citizen's and their communities

The Case Of Terry V. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why
is it important?
The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain
an individual for a questioning for a short–term period without probable cause if he/she make have
or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to
help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from
unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry
v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing
into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her
to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to
consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to
inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a
valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to
United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While
I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few
gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

Brandenburg V. Ohio Case Analysis
I believe both the rulings were very understandable and the best possible outcome. I believe the
basic holding is pretty simple, just because something might offend someone, it necessarily doesn't
mean that it's illegal. The minor premise is more interesting that burning a flag is expressive of a
particular political view. The court held that expressive conduct as the same as speech, and the
political nature of speech is entitled to the highest protection under the constitution. It was the same
scenario with Cohen V. California, he was certainly wearing a jacket that had words that may offend
some people but were just his thoughts that he was trying to get across. That also would be a form of
expression. There are also boundaries, for example the case Brandenburg V. Ohio sets a standard for
what may be permissible.

Abrams And Sedition Act Case
During times of political unrest and hysteria, the Court seems to allow for more limits on speech if
simply because the times host more potential for danger. Take the following example as parallel to
Schenck, Abrams, and the circumstances surrounding both. In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio,
the Court abandoned the clear and present danger test, stating that only speech that produces or is
likely to produce violent actions or illegal behavior can be banned (Cohen 32). The Court argued a
difference between advocacy of ideas and incitement of unlawful conduct exists – though the Court
did not define it. During this time, the United States was not concerned with being overthrown by
insurgents or overcome with hysteria like earlier in the century. ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The Court, in affirming the judgment of lower courts, deferred to Congress but also redefined the
standard to protect future free speech since the times implied more stringent restrictions on speech
could follow. Had the Court struck down the ruling, Congress would not have the necessary power
to limit speech, and future dangerous speech would go unabated since doing so would create the rule
that Congress cannot limit free speech. Rather than create this rule, the Court created a new standard
by which to measure the ability of Congress to curb free speech on a case–by–case basis. This new
standard, which more broadly protects free speech, has evolved over time, as evident in Abrams,
Brandenburg, and Holder. The ability to evolve over time and to apply to different cases in lower
courts highlights Holmes' idea that rights were established by society and balanced by the needs of
the society, according to blah blah, and thus reflects an inherent legitimacy. Again, having this
standard and the ability to choose to use it or not allows the Court to reflect the necessities of
society, thereby aligning more closely to

Chapter 8: Stops And Frisks
Chapter 8 is titled "Stops and Frisks." A stop involves the temporary detention and questioning of an
individual that is based on a standard of reasonable suspicion. A frisk is a search that has certain
limitations and is carried out for the protection of officers who are carrying out an investigation or
who have stopped an individual who may be dangerous. The criterion for seizures and stops include:
(1) The "Free–to–Leave" Test, (2) The "Free to Decline Requests or Terminate Encounter" Test, (3)
"Means Intentionally Applied" Requirement, and (4) "Halting or Submission" Requirement. The
authority to stop an individual and to question them occurs if a police officer has reasonable
suspicion that a crime that been committed. To form reasonable suspicion, an officer can get his or
her information from known informants, from anonymous informants, or from police flyers,
bulletins, or radio dispatches. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If a person's answers to the officer's questions are evasive or implausible, that can give the officer
reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has or is taking place. A stop doesn't have a certain time
limit set upon it, but if no probable cause for arrest can be found, the stop ceases to be justified as
reasonable. Officers can use force during a stop if it is for personal safety reasons and is held to the
standard of reasonableness. A frisk is conducted on the outer parts of an individual's clothing in
order to discover any weapons the individual may be hiding. A frisk, however, has to be balanced
with a person's privacy rights. Only if, during the initial pat–down, an officer feels something he or
she suspects may be a weapon, then can that officer reach into the clothing or pockets of the
individual being frisked. The passenger compartment of a car can also be searched for weapons if an
officer suspects the individual they have stopped may be

The Bill Of Rights By James Madison
The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution make up the bill of rights written by James Madison.
He wrote this in response to calls from several states for greater constitutional protection for
individuals rights. The Bill Of Rights states specific prohibitions on Governmental power. What
influenced James Madison to write these Amendments was The Virginia Declaration Of Rights by
George Maddison. The Bill Of Rights was inspired by Thomas Jefferson who was Madison 's
mentor and created on September 25, 1789 The Bill Of Rights was Ratified on December 15, 1791
in the House Of Representatives. The congress transmitted to the states legislatures and 12 proposed
amendments. The Fourth Amendment Is the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This means You cannot be searched or
seized without a warrant or probable cause. Massachusetts wrote a law in 1756 that banned these
warrants because tax collectors were abusing their powers by searching colonist homes for illegal
goods. Virginia also banned the use of general warrants later due to other fears, these actions later
led to the addition of the 4th Amendment in the Bill Of Rights. Today the 4th Amendment means
that in order for a police

Terry V Johnson Case
The issue in the present case is whether Officer Simon had reasonable suspicion to justify pulling
the defendant over? Stops by the police are referred to as a "Terry stop." Terry v. Ohio. Thus, "police
may make a brief investigatory stop if they have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be
afoot." See Terry v. Ohio. See also State v. Montel.
The stop by Officer Simson was not justified because he had no reasonable suspicion to pull over
the defendant. Reasonable suspicion, if received from an anonymous caller or informant, must be
corroborated with an investigation or independent observation by the police officer. State v Montel.
Here, Officer Simson, after receiving a call from an anonymous source, went directly to the
convenience store to look for the defendant. Upon not finding him there, he drove around until he
spotted the Red Jeep Cherokee, which the tipster identified the potential defendant driving and at
that point pulled him over. In State v. Sneed, the police stopped a defendant who made a stop at a
house ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
State v. Grayson. Here, the Officer did not conduct an investigation where he could verify details of
the tipster's story. In Grayson, the police followed the defendant and watched him conduct himself
in the same manner that the tip stated he would, which was sufficient to verify the facts given to
them. The present case is distinguishable from Grayson. Officer Simon did not conduct an
independent investigation to verify facts that the tipster had left. Again, he merely drove around
looking for the defendant and once he saw the defendant, then he pulled him over. Never did he
watch or follow him to see what he was potentially going to do with the items he bought. Thus, no
independent investigation took place and the facts of the tipster's story were not

Case Brief : Illinois V. Wardlow
Case Brief
Illinois v. Wardlow
Maria Homer
Columbia Southern University
March 11, 2016
Case Brief
Case:
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000)
Facts:
On September 9, 1995, two officers Nolan and Harvey worked as uniformed officers in special
operations for the Chicago Police Department. The expectations for entering this area was to find a
crowd of people in the area, including lookouts and customers. Upon arriving to the area, Officer
Nolan observed Wardlow standing next to a building holding an opaque bag. Wardlow looked in the
direction of the officers and fled. Nolan and Harvey pursued in chase and cornered Wardlow on the
street. Nolan exits the car and approaches Wardlow, and conducted a protective pat down search for
weapons. In doing so, Officer Nolan found a .38–caliber handgun with five live rounds of
ammunition. The officers arrested Wardlow. Wardlow was convicted of unlawful use of a weapon by
a felon. The Illinois trial court denied motion to suppress, finding the gun was recovered during a
lawful stop and frisk. The Illinois Appellate Court reversed Wardlow 's conviction, concluding that
the gun should have been suppressed because Officer Nolan did not have reasonable suspicion
sufficient to justify an investigative stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). 287 Ill. App.
3d 367, 678 N. E. 2d 65 (1997). The Illinois Supreme Court agreed. 183 Ill. 2d 306, 701 N. E. 2d
484 (1998). While rejecting the Appellate Court 's conclusion

Stop And Frisk Research Paper
Stop and frisk is the police practice of stopping people on the street, questioning them, and if needed
also frisking(searching)them. Frisking someone is permitted by law when officer thinks that the
person could be armed. A stop may result in an arrest if officer thinks that the person could be armed
and there is even a slight evidence of criminal activity. Stop and frisk illustrates the conflict between
controlling crime and maintaining the civil rights granted in the US constitution. It is a common, but
a reduced problem in urban areas. The former mayor of the NYC, Michael Bloomberg has taken
many measures to reduce crime. Stop and frisk is just one of the measures, but it is perhaps the most
controversial. This practice is already stopped ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The evidence that this practice is not that effective could be the relatively small number of arrests
and guns confiscated. Even crime data don't support the idea that people of New York are safer
because of this stops and frisk practice.
Another reason for supporting this practice could be that an increased safety level helps business to
prosper and increases the number of people who are willing to spend money on tourism in the NYC.
When people feel safe to walk on streets without any fear of being shot or being robbed, more
people are likely to visit the city. This would happen when the stop and frisk is successful, people
stopped has some sort of dangerous weapon, and people who were arrested are the ones who are
guilty.
In my opinion this practice of stop and frisk is not very successful in recent years. Stop and frisk
involves the threat of police violence and many black and latino people who were stopped were the
victims of the violent means thats were used during searching. There was study done by the New
York civil liberties union which showed that there were 179,063 stop and frisk in the first quarter of
2013. Out of those people who are searched and arrested, many were even not proper or

Stop & Frisk Policy? Racist or not? Essay
The famous and controversial police practice known as the stop and frisk started on the last sixties.
It was known national wide when the case Terry v. Ohio was presented this case was argued on
December 12, 1967 it all started when Cleveland detective McFadden was on patrol on a foot post
where he noticed the petitioner John W. Terry and another men known as Chilton were acting
suspiciously on a street corner the detective noticed both men looking into a store multiple times
with an interest to do something, then another men known as Katz showed up to the scene all three
men joined and where walking around the store, that's when detective McFadden approached and
identified himself as a police officer he started to ask them simple ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The New York Police Department's stop and frisk has been around for several years and people
recently have been taking action about it but this is a very important and useful practice that officer
conduct on a daily base, police officer are doing the right thing especially if neighborhoods are
known for criminal or violent activities then these people should be stopped, questioned and frisked,
from January to June of 2013 the NYPD's report shows that African American and Hispanics are
more active to commit crimes like robbery, rape, murder and manslaughter, felonious assault, grand
larceny, misdemeanor sex crime, misdemeanor assault, petit larceny, criminal mischief, shootings,
procession of drugs, firearms, and other illegal substance overall blacks and latinos being targeted
not only because what they are wearing or how they but also cause of what the numbers show us.
The new soon to be Major of New York Bill de Blasio has said that he is against the stop and frisk
but many officers say that taking away the stop and frisk will increase crime tremendously, people
are going to start to walk around with weapons, the whole point about the stop and frisk and why
police officers conduct it many times is because they want the public to see that anyone can be
patted down meaning that if they carry weapons with them then they will get arrested. Bill de Blasio
has also said

Don Sharp Argument Analysis
That on October 02, 2015 I, CPL Lessane, was in the process of arresting the subject, Don Sharp.,
Don Sharp resisted the arrest, by attempting to shut the front door in Deputies face. Deputies then
immediately gain entry inside the residence and attempted to place the subject under arrest. The
subject then resisted by running in the living room swinging his arms in an up and down, side to side
motion while swinging his arms towards Law Enforcement. Deputies did tased the subject to gain
control of the subject. This incident did occur in Hampton County and is a violation of the South
Carolina Code of Laws. SYNOPSIS: On October 2, 2015, I, CPL Lessane, along with Deputy Ayer
and Deputy Griffin, of the Hampton County Sheriff's Office, responded

Terry Frisk Case Analysis
Similar to a "Terry Frisk" (commonly referred to as a "pat–down" or "frisk search") a protective
search is conducted for officer safety. The same requirement of reasonable suspicion is necessary to
perform a protective search (Hall, 2014). In other words, the officer needs to be able to convey a
reason, based on articulable facts, why a protective search was conducted (Hall, 2014). These
searches are to ensure potentially, ill intentioned people that may be hidden in the area cannot harm
officers (Hall, 2014). When law enforcement makes a legal arrest, incident to that arrest an officer
can search the suspect for weapons, means of escape, and evidence (Hall, 2014). The scope of the
"search incident to arrest" allows law enforcement to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Supreme Court in Maryland v. Buie set the precedence for law enforcement to conduct protective
searches (Hall, 2014). Although not every justice on the U. S. Supreme Court agrees with the
protective search doctrine, both federal and state courts have continued to expand on the Buie ruling
(Messing, 2010). Justice Brennan has two concerns with the protective sweeps ruling in the Buie
case (Messing, 2010). First, he believes expanding the Terry rule to people's homes violates the
Fourth Amendment (Messing, 2010). Second, the basis of this legal reasoning has no limits
regarding the standards of this ruling (Messing, 2010). Fortunately for law enforcement, the
majority disagrees and most courts allow protective sweeps even in a non–arrest situation (Messing,
2010). Courts have expanded the reasonable suspicion, and ability to articulate facts for protective
sweeps to now include "categorical judgment" to satisfy a protective sweep (Messing, 2010). An
example could be if a suspect is violent or more then one is arrested, then a protective sweep can
survive the court's interpretation (Messing, 2010). When conducting protective sweeps, the factors
that courts take into consideration to validate these sweeps I believe are sensible to any reasonable
and prudent person. The four factors are as

The Bill Of Rights By George Maddison
Introduction The first 10 Amendments to the Constitution make up the bill of rights it was written
by James Madison. He wrote this to respond to all the calls he had gotten from many states for
expansive protection for individuals rights. The Bill Of Rights states specific prohibitions on power
from the government. What influenced James Madison to write these Amendments was The Virginia
Declaration Of Rights by George Maddison. The Bill Of Rights was inspired by Thomas Jefferson
who was Madison 's mentor and it was created on September 25, 1789. The Bill Of Rights was
Ratified on December 15, 1791 in the House Of Representatives. The Fourth Amendment Is "the
right of people to be secure in their persons, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It wasn 't until 1968 that the need for a lower than probable cause was viewed by the Supreme
Court. In Terry v. Ohio, the court took defense conflicts to the detention of a suspect of robbery and
that they closed the gun he had.. An article in wikipedia said "The court noted that a temporary
investigative detention is less of an infringement of a person 's liberty than arresting him and taking
him into custody. Also, said the court, police need to have as much justification for this lower level
of restraint as the probable cause that would have been required to make an arrest. The court called
this lower justification standard for detentions "reasonable suspicion."". Then In 2010 the 4th
Amendment became the talk of a debate. In an article on the web called racial profiling it states that
"After Arizona passed legislation giving local police offices the power to enforce existing
immigration laws, the controversy became the center of all around a particular subject of the new
law that had to do with search and seizure in this case, a search for immigration papers and the
seizure of a person not being a U.S citizen should fail to be provided to law enforcements." You
cannot be stopped and searched

Constitutional Policing Essay
Constitutional Policing
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable search and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things seized." The Fourth Amendment is clearly broken in the case of
Weeks v. United States, it was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously
held that the warrantless seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the
Fourth Amendment. It also prevented local officers from securing evidence by means ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
This precedent later became known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine," and is an extension
of the exclusionary rule. Mapp v. Ohio, was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the
United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal
prosecutions in state courts, as well, as had previously been the law, as in federal criminal law
prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as
selective incorporation; in this case this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as construed
by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are literally applicable only to actions of the federal
government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is literally applicable to
actions of the states. On May 23, 1957, police officers in a Cleveland, Ohio suburb received
information that a suspect in a bombing case, as well as some illegal betting equipment, might be
found in the home of Dollree Mapp. Three officers went to the home and asked for permission to
enter, but Mapp refused to admit them without a search warrant. Two officers left, and one
remained. Three hours later, the two returned with several other officers. Brandishing a piece of
paper, they broke in

Brandenburg V. Ohio Speech Analysis
Randolph called for a demonstration on the campus of USD in attempt to "stamp out Stalinist
oppression." In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the court established a two–pronged test to evaluate
speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless
action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." During the demonstration, which was
attended by dozens of students, Randolph called for resistance against University policies. In his
confession to Vermillion Police, Randolph admitted that his speech was intended to "stir up" fellow
students. Although Randolph did not personally destroy campus property or intend for the vandalism
occur, nevertheless, his speech incited others to do so. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
USD officials cited concerns about drug use within the group. However, simply because one
member of the group possesses an illegal substance, it is not grounds for baring an entire group.
Administrative staff should not have requested that the newspaper editor refuse to print editorials
submitted by Randolph. In Near v. Minnesota (1931) the Supreme Court ruled that government
cannot censor or prohibit a publication in advance, even if the communication might be punishable
after publication. USD, a public state University, cannot place prior restraint on Rudolph's editorials
as submitted to the newspaper. After the publication of the editorial those who disagree have the
privilege to write a rebuttal. Even though the editorials in question were calling for "resistance," the
University can sensor the material after the fact or punish the writer, but authorities cannot take any
action regarding an article prior to it being printed, per the Near decision. Also, USD cannot prevent
or deny requests made by a group to use designated student meeting areas on campus, unless illegal
activity is involved. Although, Randolph's speech incited violence, the actions of one individual do
not indicate that other members of LPS hold the same beliefs. Therefore, the University cannot
punish and ban the group from having a presence on the University simply

Mapp Vs Ohio Essay
From March 29, 1961, to July 19, 1961, the landmark Supreme Court case, Mapp vs Ohio was
heard. The appellant was suspected assailant to a bombing, Dollree Mapp, and the Respondent, the
State of Ohio. This case was about an unwarranted search on the appellant's property and during that
search, the police found some disturbing and obscene material. Dollree Mapp appealed her
conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. The issue at hand was whether the unlawfully
confiscated materials were protected by the First Amendment and if evidence obtained in the search
which violates the Fourth Amendment should be admitted in court as evidence. The verdict of Mapp
vs Ohio was six to three in favor of Dollree Mapp. After this, the exclusionary rule was put in place,
the rules establish that all evidence obtained must be legally ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Police came up to her house and asked to check her house if she were to harbor any criminals, she
denied their request. Then, they sat in her house and began surveillance for a few hours. They
forcibly entered her house without a warrant to corroborate any findings. "Although no suspect was
found, officers did discover certain allegedly "lewd and lascivious" books and pictures, the
possession of which was prohibited under Ohio state law" (Duignan). Dollree Mapp was convicted
of violating the law on the basis of evidence, when she appealed to the Ohio State Supreme Court,
the search has sighted the unlawfulness of the search. Ultimately, it was upheld on the precedent
"Wolf v Colorado(1949) had established that the states were not required to abide by the
exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on March
29, 1961"(United States Courts). This explains the issue at hand of how the Fourth Amendment was
infringed upon, but also on how state courts compare to federal

The Pros And Cons Of Stop And Frrisk Case
On October 31, 1963, a veteran detective of 39 years in downtown Cleveland noticed two men (one
being the petitioner Terry) walking back in forth in front of the same store numerous times each.
When they returned they would talk between each other for a few moments. Then, the men met with
a third man and stood outside "suspiciously" chatting before the third man left (Terry v. Ohio). The
officer suspected that the men were casing the stores for a stick–up or robbery and began to follow
the two men (Oyez). Again, the two men met with the third man around the block in front of another
store and again conversed. That is when the detective approached the three men, announcing himself
as a police officer and asking the names of the men (Terry v. Ohio). The men replied with a low
mumble, upon which the officer grabbed Terry, spun him around and patted him down (ACLU
Ohio). Upon patting down his overcoat, he found a pistol on Terry, and then another pistol on the
other man that was originally with Terry, before patting down and arresting the three men on
concealed weapon charges. This type of stop and frisk technique is now known as the "Terry frisk"
because of this (Argiriou). This case revolves around whether the stop and frisk by the officer
violated the Fourth Amendment rights of Terry, which provides protection from illegal search and
seizures (Oyez). Do the police have the ability to stop and pat down anyone that they deem
suspicious, or do people have more rights to

The Amendment Protection Against Unreasonable Search And...
Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in
North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this
entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory
treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories
surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are
interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and
the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right– the 4th Amendment
protection against unreasonable search and seizures––and examine how one Supreme Court decision
that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which
the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police. On June 10 1968, the United States
Supreme Court sided with the government in the case Terry v Ohio, and held that the practice of
"stop and frisk" was within the bounds of the 4th Amendment and therefore constitutional. On
October 31, 1963, while walking a routine beat in Cleveland, Ohio, Officer Martin McFadden
noticed a group of three African American men acting suspiciously outside of a jewelry store. After
watching them walk by the store and reconvene almost 24 times, McFadden approached the group,
identified himself as an officer and

Brown V Board Of Education
Landmark Supreme Court Cases  Brown v Board of Education (1954)  The Background: In the
1950's, schools were separated by race. Linda Brown and her sister had to walk down a dangerous
railroad switchyard to get to the bus stop to their all–black elementary school. There was an all–
white school closer to the Brown's house, and the Brown family believed that segregated schools
violated the Constitution.  The Constitutional Issue: This issue violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth amendment because segregated schools for people of race are
unconstitutional and unequal.  The Outcome: The Supreme Court states that segregated schools
could never be equal to each other. The Court decided that laws requiring separate schools violated
the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision supports that all people are equal. As a student, I am
affected because people of different race are welcome to go to school where I go to school.  Mapp
v Ohio (1961)  The Background: The police were suspicious of Dollree Mapp hiding a person
suspected in a bombing. They went to her house and demanded entrance, but Mapp would not let
them in because they did not have a warrant. The police broke into her house and found evidence of
crime. At the trial, the police could not show their warrant at the U.S. Supreme Court.  The
Constitutional Issue: This violated the Fourth Amendment, because the Fourth Amendment protects
the people from unreasonable search and seizure by the government.  The

The Legal Rule Of The Court Essay
Over the years, rules have been established by Supreme Court Cases in the interest of the
defendants, for the protection of their Constitutional Rights and to make sure they have received a
fair trial. These rules are created on a case by case situation in which certain situations arise and
problems surface with the judicial system and the way that it is acting. One could not predict every
problem that will arise in the court room, but all that can be done is to address the situations as they
come about.
According to the Merrian Webster dictionary, the exclusionary rule is a legal rule that bars
unlawfully obtained evidence from being used in court proceedings (Exclusionary Rule). It prohibits
the prosecutor from using illegally obtained evidence against a defendant during a trial. The
exclusionary rule is a court–made rule. This means that it was created not in statutes passed by
legislative bodies but rather by the U.S. Supreme Court.
At one time, in past history, the seizure of evidence by illegal means did not affect whether or not it
could be used in court. In fact, just so long as it was proven to be relevance and trust worthy,
meeting certain evidentiary criteria for admissibility, any evidence, no matter how it was obtained,
was acceptable in the court room. The exclusionary rule has been in existence since the early 1900
(Lawbrain). Before the rule was fashioned, any evidence was admissible in a criminal trial if the
judge found the evidence to be relevant to the

Questions On Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence
Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is primarily concentrated in four areas: 1) defining "searches"; 2)
the Warrant Requirement, in which warrantless searches are semantically precluded except in
specific and tightly constricted situations; 3) the Probable Cause Requirement, whose exclusive
provisions are closely associated with the Warrant Requirement's proscription of police inquiries
into same; and, 4) the exclusionary rule, which presumptively excludes any information or evidence
gathered in violation of the preceding two (Rickless, 2005). The Court has continued to delineate
areas, which fall outside the parameters of the restrictions placed upon government officials through
the Fourth Amendment. The Court has ruled that the areas carved out which include exceptions to
the basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment, commonly known as warrantless searches, may be
conducted if circumstances are such that the interests of society outweigh the invasiveness of the
action. The Court has have recognized special situations in which warrants were not required,
including: border searches; consent searches; container searches; exigent circumstances; searches
incident to a lawful arrest; plain view; special needs; stop and frisk; and inventory searches. The
Court has ruled that the areas carved out which include exceptions to the basic tenets of the Fourth
Amendment, commonly known as warrantless searches, may be

Legal Evolution of the Exclusionary Rule Essay
The Constitution of the United States was designed to protect citizens' civil rights from infringement
by the government and law enforcement agencies. The Constitution guarantees that the civil liberties
of the people of this country shall be respected and upheld. That fact is often considered to be
common knowledge and taken for granted by the vast majority of the population. However it was
not always that way. American legislation is constantly growing and developing. New rules and
practices are being developed and established. The exclusionary rule is considered to be the most
vital to the protection of civil rights. The exclusionary rule is represented by the Fourth Amendment
of the Constitution and it guarantees that illegally ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Despite the overwhelming significance of the rights protected and guaranteed by the Fourth
Amendment, many questions and concerns existed regarding police and court procedures and
practices. The most important of those questions was whether or not illegally obtained evidence
could be used in courts. Before 1914, any evidence obtained by the police could be used in both
Federal and State courts, regardless of any constitutional violations that might have taken place
during the search and seizure of that evidence. Such practice has spawned multiple occurrences of
police misconduct. Before that date, many police officers did not follow constitutional requirements.
They could freely search individuals and households and seize evidence without appropriate
warrants. Needless to say, that such poor performance resulted in illegal arrests and unjust
prosecutions of innocent people. One of such cases had become a landmark and initiated the long
process of reforms in regard to the Fourth Amendment and police conduct. The Supreme Court
articulation of the exclusionary rule has come in Weeks v. United States case in 1914. That case has
changed the Fourth Amendment and related laws forever. The defendant, Mr. Freemont Weeks was
convicted based on the evidence illegally seized from him during the warrantless search. The appeal
was initiated by the defense attorney, thus bringing the case to the attention of the highest Court. The
United

Stop-and-Frisk Policy
The stop–and–frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times.
The whole concept behind this stopping–and–frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion
of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if
needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v.
Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob
the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took
the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally
targeted and frisked. One of the biggest reason ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
"Once in a high–crime area, the police use every tool they have to send the message that law and
order remains in effect" (Mac Donald). Knowing that police cannot take people from these high–
crime areas and take away their weapons may spark fear in the residents living in those areas. Stop–
and–frisk was initially employed as a sort of crime deterrent, a way to keep crime off of the streets.
Without this policy, criminals will not have any incentive to stop carrying concealed weapons; this
will cause crime to rise again and citizens to live in fear.
With the abolishment of stop–and–frisk reasonable suspicion will have a stricter definition. In the
Alabama v. White case an officer got an anonymous tip and then detaining the men based on that tip.
("Stop and Frisk"). The case questioned whether that tip was reason enough to detain White. People
question whether the police have enough reasonable suspicion to stop half of the people that are
stopped because of the stop–and–frisk policy. Rolando del Carmen, a professor of Criminal Justice
at the Sam Houston State University, wrote, "A stop is valid only if an officer has reasonable
suspicion that a suspect has committed a crime or is about to commit a crime... In contrast, a frisk
has only one purpose: officer protection. A frisk for any other purpose is invalid even if evidence of
a crime is later discovered" (57). This clearly states under what conditions a police officer can

Free Expression: Brandenburg V. Ohio
The First Amendment promises that the government cannot take away our freedoms including
speech, press, assembly, and religion. One tremendous part of this amendment is free expression.
Free expression is important because of how necessary it is for our representative government, it
encourages individual growth, helps advance knowledge, and it is key to bringing about social
change, thus protecting individual rights. In the year 1969, the Supreme Court decided on a case that
challenged free expression called Brandenburg v. Ohio. This case was about Brandenburg, a leader
of the Ku Klux Klan, speaking at a Klan rally and later televising the event. Brandenburg was
charged under the Ohio's criminal syndicalism law in the tense that his rally ... Show more content
on Helpwriting.net ...
Des Moines Independent Community School District applies to the speech of students on their
social media accounts remains to be unanswered by the Supreme Court. In fact, the court denied the
case of Taylor Bell, who was suspended and sent to another school due to a "threatening,
intimidating, and harassing" rap song he wrote that included negatives about his school at the time.
If the court took this case it would have set a precedent for student social media cases all around.
Instead we are left to ponder the application of the constitution and how suppression of speech
should affect the media. So far, courts have mostly sided with the administrations of schools, rather
than the students who believe their rights have been violated. Although In some cases, like the one
of college student Navid Yeasin, Tinker's case has been upheld, while in others, such as the case of
college student Craig Keefe, it has been disregarded. It depends on the case's details and how
offensive and frightening the posts seem. Although courts try to justify rulings with pure facts,
opinion is a prominent source when deciding if a post is too extreme or not. Within the controversy,
the panel has came to one consensus regarding if Tinker v Des Moines should apply to social media.
If a student posts something about a staff member that is dangerous and potentially harmful then that
should be a very serious offence and have serious consequences. Although,

Exclusionary Rule: How, When, and Why Was it Established?...
The Fourth Amendment is the basis for several cherished rights in the United States, and the right to
the freedom of unreasonable searches and seizures is among them. Therefore, it would seem
illegitimate– even anti–American for any law enforcement agent to search and seize evidence
unlawfully or for any court to charge the defendant with a guilty verdict established on illegally
attained evidence. One can only imagine how many people would have been sitting in our jails and
prisons were it not for the introduction of the exclusionary rule. The Exclusionary Rule is a law
passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that "any evidence obtained by police using
methods that violate a person's constitutional rights be excluded ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
The defendant, Fremont Weeks, was convicted of using the mail system to allocate chances in
lottery [considered gambling in Missouri] which was unlawful. The federal agents had searched the
defendant's house and seized evidence more than once without consent or a warrant (Weeks v.
United States, 232 U.S. 383, 1914). Thirty–five years later after Weeks' case, the Supreme Court in
Wolf v. Colorado (1949) held that the 4th Amendment protection applies to searches by state
officials and federal agents. However, the exclusionary rule generated in Weeks' case did not apply
to the states. The appellant, Julius A. Wolf, was convicted of treachery to commit abortions in
Colorado and police officers had attained evidence used against him without a warrant or consent.
State judges were not required to disregard evidence obtained in desecration of the 4th Amendment
in states' criminal prosecutions. In this case, the Supreme Court applied the 4th Amendment to the
states through the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause. Wolf's verdict was upheld (Wolf v.
Colorado, 338 U.S. 25, 1949). The Supreme Court left the states to enforce the 4th Amendment
protection. It resulted in the abused power and the court had to intervene (Holten &Lamar, 1991).
Leaving states to find ways to protect their citizen's 4th amendment as they try to control criminal
activities in their jurisdictions proved to be a failure. Hence, in Mapp v. Ohio case in 1961, the Court
applied the

The Role Of Homeland Security In The United States
In colonial times, the thought of personal privacy was a driving force in bringing people to the New
World. Living under oppressive monarchs, the promise of a self–governing new land was attractive
to many early colonists. This new self–governing land quickly needed an authoritative police force
to prevent crime and punish criminals. As time and technology progressed however, the laws
remained the same. Eventually, the laws were modernized.
"Mapp v. Ohio states evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is excluded from
evidence in criminal trials. Katz v. the US What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in
his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to
preserve as private, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In fact most of their time is spent on monitoring and preventing real world attacks. Currently
however, too many restrictions are put on intelligence agencies. On April 15, 2016, Tamerlan and
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev planted two bombs near the finish line at the popular Boston Marathon, killing
three people and injuring more than two dozen. The local government was aware of the Tamerlan
brothers and fearful of them. After further assessing the situation the government came to the
realization that had they have had more intelligence on the brothers the attacks could have been

School To Prison Pipeline Essay

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Anita Strong

More from Anita Strong (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

School To Prison Pipeline Essay