This article argues that the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio (1968) was not necessary (in New York state) in order to allow police officers to search or frisk someone abut whom they had a "reasonable suspicion." The law was unnecessary because these types of frisk procedures were already largely allowed in the state. Instead, the law allowed the police to submit what they had seized during stop and frisk activities in a court of law as admissible evidence. The author of this article, Raymond, argues against an article by Professor Fyfe, who states that the best way to stop the abuses inherent in stop and frisk activities by the police is supervision by the police department. Instead, Raymond believes that the best way to prevent abuses is to use the courts to "police the police," as she calls it. She believes that police officers often lie and that the police are not capable of developing a sound system of internal review. Instead, the court system, she believes, must play a role in limiting the discretion that the police have in conducting stop and frisk procedures.
No comments:
Post a Comment