What is Stop and Frisk? Is Stop and Frisk Legal?

When is "stop and frisk" legal, and when is it unconstitutional? Imagine walking down the street, minding your own business, when a police officer stops you, searches you, and starts questioning you. Is this 'stop and frisk' legal? Professor Dan Capra of Fordham Law School unravels the legal complexities behind stop and frisk, citing the landmark Terry v. Ohio case and dissecting the controversial application of stop and frisk by the New York City Police Department.

Learn what constitutes 'reasonable suspicion,' the fine line between a legal and an unconstitutional stop, and explore the ongoing debate on whether the practice promotes safety or fosters discrimination.

Prof. Daniel Capra teaches Criminal Law and Procedure, and Evidence at Fordham Law School in New York City.

__________

Transcript: You’re just walking around one day, minding your own business, don’t think you’re creating any trouble, don’t think you’re suspicious. And all of a sudden, a police officer comes up to you and says, “Stop. I want to talk to you.”

And then they pat you down. And whatever they might find, they pull out, and they look at it. And the question that this incident raises, often for people of color especially, is, “Is stop and frisk legal?”

I’m Dan Capra. I’m a professor at Fordham Law School and I’ll provide you with a quick and down and dirty explanation of this particularly complicated area.

One of the problems of “Is stop-and-frisk legal?” is the term stop-and-frisk is kind of used by people who kind of really don’t know what they’re talking about, like in the presidential debate for example.

Lester Holt: Stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional in New York, because it largely singled out black and Hispanic young m—

Donald Trump: No, you’re wrong. It went before a judge, who was a very against-police judge.

Hillary Clinton: Stop and frisk was found to be unconstitutional and, in part, because it was ineffective. It did not do what it needed to do.

Prof. Capra: Stop and frisk has been established as a legal practice if certain conditions are met, and that’s by the Supreme Court in the famous case of Terry v. Ohio.

What the court determined is that officers had to have what is called probable cause, the standard required to make an arrest, for street encounters and street investigations, then a lot of time would go undetected and there would be a risk to the public. So what the court did is basically invent a standard of proof called reasonable suspicion, which would actually allow officers to stop somebody’s movement and basically determine whether reasonable suspicion could lead to probable cause. To basically ask questions, “Where are you going? What are you doing? Who are you doing it with? Where ya been?” doing warrant checks, doing identification checks and the like, for a limited period of time. It’s not an arrest. It’s what’s called a stop.

But attendant to the stop is the frisk. And the frisk is for self-protection. If the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous - not just armed, but armed and dangerous - then the officer can search for those weapons that are on the person and also on whatever the person’s carrying. And also, as it happens, in the passenger compartment of the car if the person is stopped in their car. Upon reasonable suspicion, these searches can occur.

So, is stop legal? The answer is yes, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the suspect - the person - is about to commit or has committed a crime.

Second, a frisk is legal, again, upon the condition that the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person whom they have stopped is armed and dangerous.

Now, those are the basics. It’s a lot more complex than that. But the answer is stop and frisk is legal. However, there have been situations in which officers enforce stop and frisk in an illegal fashion, and that is the issue that came up in the major lawsuit against the New York City Police Department about their stop and frisk program. The problem with the stop and frisk program as found by the judge—she found that stop and frisk was being used selectively—that it was actually an equal protection problem in the use of the stop and frisk program. That is to say, it was being used to discriminate against minorities, particularly African-American men.

Secondly, the court found that many of these stop and frisks were occurring without reasonable suspicion. So essentially what the court found was that the "stop-and-frisk program," not the idea of stop and frisk program, was unconstitutional as applied by the New York City Police Department, and basically that program has now been abandoned.

But that doesn’t mean stop and frisk has been abandoned. It just means that stop and frisk, when legally conducted, is a permissible police practice.

[FUNKBOOGIE]

a few years ago I was walking to the bus stop on my way to work, in the
morning.
I saw a sheriffs car at the corner, bust a you turn and stop. Sheriff
deputy jumps out in front of me telling me to put my hands on the hood
because they was looking for a burglary suspect. Now if I miss my bus, I
will arrive to work late, get written up or even get fired from work.
HOW MUCH IS A LAW SUIT LIKE THAT IS WORTH WHEN IT COMES TO STOP AND FRISK ? this is why the rules of people rights are important.

[shyaminikrishan]

It seems like its hard to argue with an officer about "reasonable suspicion" when the stop is occurring, which stops people from really being able to resist a wrongful search. Regardless, great video- very informative. :)

[nargizadigozalova]

does an officer need to report the reasonable suspicion he or she has before "stop and frisk"?

[eiland]

The Stop and Frisk concept is perfectly legal but as stated, it was unevenly applied. And if a LEO frisked you, it is supposed to be for weapons only that could hurt the officer. Cops would find drugs and charge people but they weren’t supposed to be frisking for drugs, so the uneven application of Stop and Frisk is what is unconstitutional and it is never used outside of large urban areas with large minority populations.

[axepagode]

Two questions. What is reasonable suspicion? Why do police ask your permission to search your car, if they pull you over for a traffic stop? You can say no to the search. They can detain you until you comply.

[Hubjeep]

1:47 If you don't have a good answer, isn't it best to say "I don't have to answer that"? Or maybe in all cases don't answer any questions?

[paulrodriguez]

Thanks for your information. It answered my questions very well. Thanks for sharing.

[jimbriola]

Ironically Terry and Chiltons nephews both became Cloumbus Ohio Policemen Officers. I had the opportunity to meet them.

[MrBones-ikpr]

In a government class - this was legit. Thanks

[FUNKBOOGIE]

also is stop and frisking somebody under the age 18 child molestation and those 18 and over sexual assault ?

[nightryder]

The tricky part is probable cause... Probable cause means the officer has to be able to articulate a factual cause as to why he wants to search uou.. Ask if youre being detained.. If he says yes.. Ask for what PC.. If he says suspicion then tell him that suspiciousness is not a crime.. Invoke your 5th ammendment

[jimbriola]

The Supreme Court decision was made as a result of an arrest my uncle, Detective Martin J. Mc Fadden made in Down Town Cleveland in 1963 in front of The United Airlines Ticket office. One of the men he arrested later shot and killed a drug store owner in Columbus Ohio during an attempted robbery. Detective Mc Fadden may have very well prevented a similar crime in Cleveland when he "patted down" Terry on that Halloween day in 1963. The specifics of that particular arrest definitely justify his actions and the final
Supreme Court Decision.

[kathyarcher]

Question: Reasonable Suspicion does not work while driving? Probable Cause is the stop then? Reasonable Suspicion is for walking or hanging around?

[EliH]

Dan, for such a passionately debated topic I am surprised this video hasn't captured more attention. It is as you say down and dirty, providing the basics. Thanks... of course there are questions. There have to to be questions:)

Since I 1st heard the term I heard of it used in the context of stopping people in high crime areas for no other reason that they were in high crime areas and perhaps secondary to that met the profile characteristics of the common perpetrators of crime in these areas (young/male/particular clothing style etc...). In the NYC use days, was your understanding of the coined term different?

I was raised near Boston. Aside from Barney Miller, nearly everything New York City was bad. The prevalence of crime even in better parts of the city only perpetuated the image. It got much worse in the 80's it seemed. Then the city leaders went tough on crime. Different from LEO's doing things on their own, when leadership acts the effects are broad and more uniform, thus more likely to lead to intended results.

I heard about what was happening in the 90's, saw the Constitutional issue of stopping someone with no real suspicion of criminal activity. But I didn't care. It made NYC a better place for ~everyone~. While it most assuredly violated the founding principles of our rule of law, did the ends justify the means in this case?

Thanks for the video.

[dimensionoflov]

You guys have to understand how he is explaining things. He is explaining it fron a cops point of view. I will say the same thing from a citizens point of view: IT IS ILLEGAL FOR POLICE TO SEARCH YOU OR YOUR PROPERTY WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPENSION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED, HAS BEEN COMMITTED, OR WILL BE COMMITTED. A COP CANT TerrY STOP A PERSON WITHOUT REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A CRIME BEING COMMITTED ETC. Lawyers use words of art to make the average person think which ever way they want. Please learn the law

[Dr.M.VincentCurley]

I think the average person is aware of the legality of these tenets, what most of us don't know is the nuances of the subjectiveness of "reasonable cause/suspicion" Who decides what is reasonable?

[BaFunGool]

Stop & Frisk jammed up many people. Glad its gone in NYC, my home turf.

[joestolzenberger]

It comes down to!!! what ever cops want to do they do. Legal or illegal.

[garysteffke]

How long do you have to wait for the officer to get out of his car to ask you for your license registration and Certificate of Insurance i think if he pulled me over he should get out of his car right away

[ericpearce]

I've heard of cops using stop and frisk to search for drugs, often times with humiliating cavity searches. How is this not a violation of Terry v. Ohio