Stop-and-frisk Under President-elect Donald Trump's Administration

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Publication year: 2017
• Citation: Vol. 4 No. 0

Stop-and-Frisk Under President-Elect Donald Trump's Administration

Manny Arora

STOP-AND-FRISK UNDER PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP'S ADMINISTRATION

Manny Arora^*

Introduction

First, this Article will discuss President-elect Trump's controversial comments regarding the "Stop-and-Frisk" jurisprudence in criminal law. Second, this article will elaborate on the history of the jurisprudence surrounding the Stop-and-Frisk case law by summarizing four cornerstone Supreme court holdings, which have molded the Stop-and-Frisk law today. Lastly, this article will conclude that President-elect Trump's ability to elect Supreme court justices in the future raises legitimate concerns that the Stop-and-Frisk law will be expanded, which may infringe on our constitutional rights as American citizens.

I. Stop-and-Frisk under the Trump Administration

In the wake of Americans selecting Donald Trump to be the forty-fifth president of the United States, we are faced with many questions regarding the sanctity of our constitutional rights. While the 2016 election results would indicate our desire to have less government intervention in our lives, Trump's campaign rhetoric makes plausible that law enforcement will become more intrusive than ever before. one area of considerable concern is the president elect's controversial opinion to reinstate the policing tactic known as "stop-and-frisk."

Trump has publicly praised New York City's prior use of "stop-and-frisk" policing tactics and has expressed a desire to begin implementing it elsewhere.¹ For example, Trump has stated, "I see what's going on here, I see what's going on in Chicago, I think stop-and-frisk. In New York City it was so

[Page 32]

incredible, the way it worked."² While a "stop-and-frisk" procedure that is narrowly tailored, limited in scope, and based on a reasonable articulable suspicion is constitutional³ , the more expansive application of "stop-and-frisk" utilized in New York City was ruled to be unconstitutional in 2013.

II. An Overview of Stop-and-Frisk Law Under Three Supreme Court Cases

A. Supreme Court Holding in Terry

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court stated what constitutes a valid "stop-and-frisk" and when police officers can frisk a suspect in order to protect themselves from danger.⁴ First, for a stop to comply with the Fourth Amendment and not violate an individual's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, it must be based on a "reasonable articulable suspicion" that criminal activity is in progress or about to happen.⁵ Police officers may make a stop when the facts available at the time would "'warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief' that the action taken was appropriate".⁶

Second, Terry also noted that there is a legitimate interest for an officer "in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him."⁷ Therefore, if an officer has made a valid stop and reasonably believes that she is dealing with an armed person, it is permissible to frisk that person for weapons.⁸

All Terry stops must be based on reasonable articulable suspicion, and such stops must be conducted in a racially neutral manner. These standards were not met by the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" practices praised by...