Essay On Stop And Frisk

The Founding Fathers believed that the sanctity of individual rights must be held above all else, due to their prior experiences with the tyrannical rule of King George III of Great Britain. After the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, the United States government has introduced several laws and allowed several actions that compromise the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution in the supposed name of security or the general welfare. These laws include the Espionage Act which was introduced during World War I, and the use and allowance of ‘Stop and Frisk’ procedures amongst America’s various police agencies. The introduction and use of these laws and procedures were meant to keep the American public safe following outbreaks of war and to try and prevent weapon related violence, but they also compromise the liberties that are ensured to the
American people by the Bill of Rights in the Constitution such as freedom of speech and freedom from unreasonable searches and/or seizures. During World War I, the Woodrow Wilson Administration launched a campaign of law enforcement throughout the United States. This included the enacting of the Espionage Act, which was written in 1917 to “prohibit interference with military operations or recruitment, to prevent insubordination in the military” (18 U.S.C. ch. 37). According to the First Amendment of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the Freedom of Speech” (U.S. Const. Amend. I). This amendment is supposed to ensure that citizens of the United States are able to speak freely. During World War I, mandatory drafts were instated to fight against the opposition. Charles Schenck, a socialist living in America at the time, decided to distribute thousands of flyers and leaflets to American military servicemen urging them not to submit to the draft process. Although he was entitled to his right to freedom of speech, his actions technically violated the recently enacted Espionage Act by trying to persuade American servicemen not to submit to the draft. The government alleged that Schenck conspired to cause insubordination by distributing his leaflets and flyers. Even though Schenck’s actions are protected by his Constitutional rights, he was convicted and charged for violating the Espionage Act. This verdict was later upheld by the Supreme Court, “While in peacetime such flyers could be construed as harmless speech, in times of war they could be construed as acts of national insubordination.” (Schenck v. United States 249 U.S. 47) This case precedent was one of the first examples of the limiting of speech by the American government, and it shows how this individual’s First Amendment rights were restricted by the government in the name of the general welfare. Furthermore, the government has restricted the liberties ensured by the Fourth Amendment of freedom from unreasonable searches, in the name of the general welfare of the American public by trying to prevent weapon related violence.
According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution: ““The right of the people to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures” (U.S. Const. Amend. IV). Stop and Frisk is a procedure used by several law enforcement agencies in which an officer stops and questions a pedestrian, then proceeds to frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Martin McFadden, an officer for the Cleveland Police Department, saw two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, walking back and forth between two corners of the sidewalk. After meeting up with a third suspect, Katz, the officer proceeded to frisk them, finding a total of two guns between the three men. Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying a concealed weapon and were sentenced to prison time. After the men brought their case to the Supreme Court, their arrest was deemed constitutional. According to the Supreme
Court,
“ Yet a rigid and unthinking application of the exclusionary rule, in futile protest against practices which it can never be effectively used to control, may exact a high toll in human injury and frustration of efforts to prevent crime.” (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1)
This decision shows that the American government purposefully restricted these men’s Fourth Amendment rights in the name of the general welfare to “prevent crime”, even though it was their constitutional right not be searched unreasonably. Even though the Founding Fathers believed in the sanctity of our individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the government has repeatedly restricted these rights in the name of general welfare. This must never be allowed, considering the fact that restricting individual liberties is the same reason why the Founding Fathers had such disdain for the tyrannical King George III of Great Britain, and why we have the Bill of Rights today.