Those acting on behalf of the state, including police officers, can only lawfully detain people and conduct searches under specific circumstances. Some searches may violate the rights of individuals, allowing for the suppression of any evidence found if there is a criminal trial later.
In some cases, police officers conduct inappropriate physical searches, possibly after encountering a person in a public location. What are the common legal requirements for a stop-and-frisk encounter?
Pat-downs are invasive searches
A police officer physically searching a person’s body, bags and clothing is perhaps the most invasive type of search possible. Historically, there have been scenarios in which law enforcement professionals have used racial profiling or speculation to justify invasive searches of individuals after encountering them in public locations.
As such, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on stop-and-frisk encounters. Also known as Terry stops, a term derived from the relevant Supreme Court case, stop-and-frisk counters must meet two key standards to be lawful.
First, police officers must have an articulable suspicion that an individual committed a specific criminal act. Second, they must have a reasonable belief that the person has a dangerous weapon. Believing that they possess drugs is generally not adequate reason to frisk or pat down a person if an officer doesn’t have the probable cause necessary to arrest them.
Stop-and-frisk encounters may sometimes constitute a violation of an individual’s rights. Reporting concerns about police officer conduct to a criminal defense attorney can help people evaluate their options. Evidence suppression could lead to a dismissal of pending charges or may pave the way for an effective criminal defense strategy.