Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Stop and search or Stop and frisk is a term used to describe the powers of the police to search a person, place or object without first making an arrest. Examples in specific jurisdictions include: Powers of the police in England and Wales § Search without arrest in England and Wales
A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. [1] [2] Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk.
"Stop and identify" statutes are laws in several US states; Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Utah, and Wisconsin. U.S. states that authorize police [ 1 ] to lawfully order people whom they reasonably suspect of committing a crime to state their name.
Stop-and-frisk was an issue in the 2013 mayoral election. The race to succeed Bloomberg was won by Democratic Party candidate Bill de Blasio, who had pledged to reform the stop-and-frisk program, called for new leadership at the NYPD, an inspector general, and a strong racial profiling bill. [42]
After stopping a person based upon the reasonable belief that the person might be engaged in unlawful activity, or following a routine encounter such as a traffic stop, the police in the United States may perform a cursory search of the persons outer clothing for their own safety. Terry v. Ohio. [3]
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) — stop and frisk for weapons OK for officer safety; Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) — companion case to Terry. Peters v. New York (1968) — companion case to Terry contained in Sibron
This is an accepted version of this page This is the latest accepted revision, reviewed on 13 January 2025. Stop and search law in England and Wales In England and Wales, the sus law (from "suspected person") was a stop and search law that permitted a police officer to stop, search and potentially arrest people on suspicion of them being in breach of section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 ...
During the course of a search an officer may develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause; once this has been developed the individual loses the right to revoke consent. However, in United States v. Fuentes (1997), the court found the "[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause."