Difference Between Stops And Arrests
There are several differences between stops and arrests. As an exception to the Probable Cause and warrant requirements a stop has to have the underlining basis of reasonable suspicion. At its core a police stop is when an officer stops you from doing anything that you were doing prior and after an officer has observed an individual doing something suspicious. While an arrest is an officer actually taking a person into police custody. If a stop is arbitrary or not supported by reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or another legitimate road safety or traffic management reason it is in violation of the 4th Amendment. (Hall, 2015). The Supreme Court has also held that the validity of a stop is determined by whether there is probable cause exists
to believe a traffic violation has occurred, not the motives of the police. (Hall, 2015). When an officer possesses Probable cause to believe that an armed individual is involved in a crime – in reality stop and frisk typically is carried out by a police force en masse in a program. (Meares, 2015). The court in Terry vs Ohio authorized police intervention in an individual incident but the Constitution's 4th Amendment does not recognize it being used repeatedly as a way of illegally then targeting individuals. With that being said a Frisk is defined as being a pat down of a person's clothing. (Hall, 2015). A search is when an officer goes through someone's belongings. Searches are routinely done with a warrant however there is no Probable Casuse requirement for a search incident to an arrest. (Hall, 2015). The issue of searching a defendant's person was addresses in the United States vs Robinson. (Hall, 2015). The Court held that after a lawful arrest the defendant's person may be fully searched without obtaining an arrest warrant. To require officers to obtain a warrant would needlessly endanger their lives and increase the possibility of the defendant destroying evidence.
References
Meares, T. L. (2015). Programming Errors: Understanding the Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk as a Program, Not an Incident. University Of Chicago Law Review, 82(1), 159-179.
to believe a traffic violation has occurred, not the motives of the police. (Hall, 2015). When an officer possesses Probable cause to believe that an armed individual is involved in a crime – in reality stop and frisk typically is carried out by a police force en masse in a program. (Meares, 2015). The court in Terry vs Ohio authorized police intervention in an individual incident but the Constitution's 4th Amendment does not recognize it being used repeatedly as a way of illegally then targeting individuals. With that being said a Frisk is defined as being a pat down of a person's clothing. (Hall, 2015). A search is when an officer goes through someone's belongings. Searches are routinely done with a warrant however there is no Probable Casuse requirement for a search incident to an arrest. (Hall, 2015). The issue of searching a defendant's person was addresses in the United States vs Robinson. (Hall, 2015). The Court held that after a lawful arrest the defendant's person may be fully searched without obtaining an arrest warrant. To require officers to obtain a warrant would needlessly endanger their lives and increase the possibility of the defendant destroying evidence.
References
Meares, T. L. (2015). Programming Errors: Understanding the Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk as a Program, Not an Incident. University Of Chicago Law Review, 82(1), 159-179.