Frisk:ĭuring a stop, if an officer reasonably believes you have a weapon, he or she is permitted to pat down (frisk) your outer clothing. A CCRB investigation will focus on whether the officer had reasonable suspicion, based on observable conduct, and/or information. When an officer stops your car, the officer must have reasonable suspicion that someone in the car committed a crime, or probable cause to believe the driver committed a traffic violation. During a stop you are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave. The officer must have a reasonable suspicion that you are committing, have committed, or are about to commit a crime. The third type of encounter is more intrusive and is called a stop, where the officer temporarily detains you, even using reasonable force to do so. The CCRB investigation will focus on whether the officer had a founded suspicion that criminal activity was happening. Here, an officer’s questions become extended and accusatory and focus on possible criminality. The second level of intrusion is called a common-law inquiry. A CCRB investigation about an encounter such as this will focus on whether there was some objective, credible reason for the officer’s request, not necessarily indicative of criminality. You may then be asked briefly about your identity, destination, or reason for being in an area. This is a general, non-threatening encounter in which you are approached for a reason the officer can articulate. The least intrusive encounter is a simple request for information. Police Authority and Street Encounters Request for Information: The investigation will focus on the details of the encounter, in accordance with New York State law, police department rules and the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court has an opportunity in this case to set a clear limit on when a police stop becomes an arrest and when someone can get justice after their constitutional freedoms have been trampled on.When we receive a complaint about these types of street encounters, the complaint is investigated as an abuse of authority. All too often, a “stop and frisk” goes awry, with innocent citizens finding themselves the victims of police violence or taken to jail on thin criminal charges. Haden and Weston were traumatized but released unharmed. A slip, and this incident could have become much more tragic. Yet the officer, by pointing his gun at them, threatened them with deadly force. When you watch the video, you see how absurd it was that they were considered any threat at all. The boys were doing nothing suspicious, identified themselves, and complied with every request. When you’ve done nothing wrong, the police should not be able to point guns at you and put you in handcuffs. Now, the Institute for Justice is appealing the boys’ case to the Supreme Court. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed their lawsuit. While a federal district court said their suit should move forward, a 2-1 decision by the 8th U.S. Haden and Weston’s mother sued the officer on behalf of herself and her two children. Furthermore, in the wake of the Civil War, Congress created the right for Americans to sue state officials when their constitutional rights were being abused. The Fourth Amendment was created to protect Americans from false arrest. But what started as narrow and limited today is used to justify cuffing children who pose no physical threat to an officer even after it’s been established that they have no weapons. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the police have “narrow” authority to make “limited” stops without probable cause. Historically, such stops were considered to be arrests, something that could only be done with probable cause. Infamously, an entire Black family was handcuffed face down in a Colorado parking lot after they were pulled over because their car shared the same license plate number as a stolen motorcycle. It’s also similarly deployed against minors. “Stop and frisk” is used by officers across the country every day. Unfortunately, what happened to Haden and Weston is far from rare. After a terrifying ordeal in the dark and cold, the boys were uncuffed and released to their home. He asked the obvious question: “Were they running?” When the response was “No, they were just walking sir,” the sergeant pointed out that the boys probably weren’t the suspects. Even as he was doing that, a police sergeant had arrived on the scene. Bizarrely, the officer said, “I just need to figure out who these kids are”-at which point the stepfather gave their names again.Īfter his backup arrived, the officer placed the boys in handcuffs, searched them for weapons and rifled through their backpack. Again, the officer had an opportunity to release the boys to their home when their stepfather came outside to talk.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |