Police Searches and Seizures

Police Searches and Seizures

Introduction

You are driving your kids to school early morning, and then a police officer instructs you to pull your vehicle aside for frisking. That doesn’t sound respectable; probably it would, but how does the black or Asian minorities in the similar situation perceive it? The puzzle forms the basis of the topic of this article. Police searches and seizures commonly referred to as to stop and search. The perception and stances are different for the debates that have been going across the states about the subject matter.

Under the provision of the fourth amendment, most of the police seizures demand a warrant for the same on the grounds of a probable cause. However, there are exceptional cases. In the event that a police officer lacks the consent, for performing a search or an arrest, or the officer feels the urge to search a property belonging to an individual, the fourth amendment also gives direction on what procedures are adhered to. The standards for the probable cause, getting a search warrant is compared to the quantum proof required for the subsequent conviction, rather the proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  Stipulations of the fourth amendment aver that the search warrants must be logical and precise.

A reasonably obtained warrant should demonstrate then properties to be searched and the location the search is taking place where. Ideally, the document outlines any restriction in the location of a search where the law enforcement officers cannot gain access. In other words, the document serves as the permission for the invasion of someone’s property by the police. The basis of this article is not to delve into search aspects and the whole process in criminal justice, although seizures and searches and are current issues that continue to emerge and cause legal conflicts between the police and the civilian. A single search carries different intrigues, from the police, who are working for the interest of the state and for the individual being searched and at the same hiding behind the provisions of the fourth amendment. This would rightly so appear as conflicting interests.

For the past decade, the police in Kentucky State have done searches to over a million citizens. Some have been found culpable of committing certain crimes while a significant number of them found innocent upon search. More than 12,000 households and homes been searched over the same period in Kentucky. The information depicts such a continuous issue that keeps arising and that whenever a criminal justice system matter is under discussion, seizures and searches cannot be avoided. The two critical elements of criminal justice have statistically been proven to affect the police-civilian relationship.

The first Argument

This segment will delve into the aspects of searches, seizures, and their implications. Also, it is paramount to see whether the acts of law enforcers have proven futile or it they been successful over a given period of time. Ideally, what are the ways through federal or state legislation the police can improve their contact during searches of a suspected criminal? As noted earlier, searches have evoked a heated debate about the conflict of interests between law enforcement officers and civilians.

To begin with, is it right to have searches? The United States of America is a democratic society built on the tenets of the rule of law. Such standards are supposed to reflect in each and every state, probably raising the bar of expectation high. Whenever a state is making its laws, it should consider the larger picture of American society. So to say, the searches are vital and helpful when conducted with guide by the clauses of the fourth amendment.

The fourth amendment provides for a requisite of the warrant before any such with some exceptions. The warrantless search could be permissible in the situation of emergency or where the lives of the civilians are in danger. For instance, stop and search. This is a kind of search that remains utterly significant in the powers provided for the police to protect the citizens. Combating crime and ensuring calmness and safety in the streets. Stop and search has been expected to be employed in a fair and efficient method that boosts public confidence. Over the last five years, the police have changed; they perform stop and search; the process is now used far less is registering efficiency with the adverse reaction dropping to about 60 percent. Stop and search has an impact which cannot be underestimated since it had no individual or communities, hence keeping the public confidence. (Christine, 44)

The essential purpose of the stop and search is to make law enforcers confirm or allay their suspicion about a particular person without having to take them under custody. For this process to be fruitful, effectiveness must be evident where suspicion has been discovered and superfluous arrest, which in turn inflames the public. Ideally, where crime is detected or an object of suspicion is found. At the moment, thirty-two percent of all searches done are as a result of an officer’s suspicion materializing, and an illegal object discovered somewhat relevant crime unleashed. The percentage is an improvement from twenty percent in 2011. Police departments across different states cite increased knife assaults and similar crimes, which are on the rise as a reason for the effort of effecting the stop and search operations (Christine, 37). Alternatively, the police have also employed tact such as Teal and Scepter to address the issue of knife crimes. This operation is meant to recover knives from the habitual carriers. Also, drug confiscation is another reason why police prefer to stop and search. Hard drunks make people irrational as they affect their mental capabilities.

The Second Argument

According to Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 US 443(1971) A law enforcer does need the warrant to search on evidence that is plain in the case that such an officer in the area where the evidence is first located. This implies that the police have the privilege to invade someone’s property. This is has been the basis in which the critics have founded their arguments against the stop and search operation. First, the operation has been termed discriminatory. On 13^th November 2018, The Guardian aired views of an irritated citizen who gave his encounter with the police in the operation stop and search operation.  The man question points out the level of suspicion that the police use to identify what people to search on. The prospects have been found problematic on many occasions by different people who add their accounts with the police search. This has led to the call of removal of the search on reasonable grounds clause from the fourth amendment. The search on reasonable grounds has been perceived as a discriminatory tool. There has been a report that has linked the police as discriminating when carrying out searches. For instance, in 2015, there were 120 claims across the United States of the police for no apparent reason to the blacks.

Some of the most significant faults of stop and search are that they negatively employ profiling and typification, creates a foam of hostility among civilians when the operation is misused. The operation demands a lot of human resources as many officers and taken near crime centers. This is done for the purposes of locating and acting upon crime calls swiftly. According to the New York Times, people respond to the stop and frisk call positively when approached in a respectable manner by the law enforcers. (The New York Times)The profiling of suspects has been pointed out as the most typical method of policing, especially when the police are handling a case on race. For instance, there are people who accused of forcedly and faced harassment. The world is not a perfect sphere. However, there are need to institutionalize policies which seek to improve the quality of human. This is a global agenda, and very docket should be championing for its attainment.

Racism has been fuelled by police profiling. In 2017, an unarmed young identified as Garner, who was a black American, was killed by police. This triggered civil unrest, and the streets of Dallas were filled with seas of humanities. People all over the world stood to show support to Garner by wearing black outfits and holding demonstrations. Had the aspect of profiling been scaled to size earlier, the humanitarian crisis would not occur. There is a need to avoid other similar incidents in the future. Policies need to be formulated an implemented directing the police and other authorities on how to carry out these essential exercises effectively. Also, the colleges training the police should be revamped in the sense that they cope with the demands of society. The public perception with the police has been something worth discussion for a long time. To improve the correlations, the public needs to feel a sense of respect from the law enforcers. A study had shown that when people approached with manners by the police, they tend to conform and respond effectively and thus saving time that would adequately be wasted on intense frisking with negotiations.

First Argument Negatives

The negatives associated with the stop and search operation have been numerous and seemingly continuous to increase each day hence the polarity. For instance, there exists a disparity in the exercise associated with race, gender, and age. For a number of reasons, the disparity is complicated and involves the application of power to handle gangs and other crimes. All remedies of proportionality are subjective, but depending on which population base is used.  It is difficult for any population base to precisely gather a street number or crime profile in a particular area at a given time. In the year 2016, 42 percent of the people frisked by police in New York were Africans, and those 14 percents were of Asian origin. For the case of age disparity, there seems to be no mechanism within the police system that is controlling and respecting the aged. When an elderly is suspected of committing a crime, handling them with respect would be a significant precedent to the next generation. It would gradually evolve the relationship between the police and the public, which has for long been an n matter of the topic.

The use of recording stop and searching body camera represents the critical topic on privacy. Are private data leaked? Are they in safe hands when they are left to the police? These are some of the essential questions that the critiques raise. Looking at the camera body search at a critic’s angle is significant; for transparency, the public needs to be briefed on the element that the body camera entails. On whether the cameras can be used to choreographed evident is another subject. Nowadays, in the technological era, electronic gadgets are manipulated, and a camera is no exception. Stop and search exercise use do much human resources. The question would critically be asked, would people continue paying taxes to keep fueling crisis between the civilians and the police? In the digital world where all countries are investing the technological space, measures to curb crimes should be incepted. This would reduce the cost operation and try to remove any kind of externality existing in American society as far as security details are concerned.

Second Argument Negatives

Security should be optimally provided to the people. It is one of the most critical sectors in any nation. Stop and search is part and parcel of conveying optimal security bundles to the society. Countries use a lot of money on security too. Abolishing who arguing against stop and search would set a very negative precedent to the country itself. It would also give the enemy loopholes to loom freely. It can also be seen as a crime factory that is a nation without a practical crime control module. Improving stop and search is the much desired than abolishing it. In areas with more delinquent population, the operation is used to curb the rate of crime. It is also used in taking away weapons from the streets and there controlling the issue of homicides and murder.

The exercise over time has been as targeting racial grouping. It has also been subject to abuse. Controlling and putting our police force in order would entirely delegate on the initial purpose to the people.

Opinion

It is clear that there are a number of opposing suggestions about the stop and exercise security exercise. However, the broader objective of the policy must critically be analyzed before the faults are pointed out. The policy has led to more good than harm, and statistics prove that. It has been stated categorically that the law seeks to address the issue of high crime rates and not racial or against ethnic minorities. (Unite State, Congress, and House committee on the Judiciary. 14) Minority groups have been advised against going against the policy since it would be realistic to contact and are where the majority of people are the minority groups, and most people frisked would be the minority. Secondly, stop and search is very important in keeping the borders safe. Borders are what determine the people who live in a country. Abandoning the exercise in such a crucial part would risk the lives of its residents. In the case of Kentucky Hispanic lady frisked by the police, it be would unfortunate for the police officers not instruct the lady to stop.

The case show improvement in the effectiveness of the police even though there are critics the standard of noticing the suspicions. It a perfect case that should be used to show stop and search is not as it is criminalized or fueled by tabloids and the mainstream media.

Conclusion

Keeping everyone in country safe is paramount. The authorities would do anything to ensure safety to all citizens. Eliminating stop and search operation would be unnecessary. There reports which have indicating positive improvements on the stop and search process. The authorities should invest in those positive feedbacks and try to develop a system that takes care of everyone. In the aspect of technology, it is the high time that high tech devices are used the police accomplish their duties with ease and convenient. Also, police across the nation should increase transparency and try to create good relations with the public.