An important of our criminal justice system is based on a reasonable doubt
standard namely the criminal standard of proof. This legal standard of
proof is used everyday in our criminal justice system as an accepted standard.
The legal standard for forcible street stops by a police officer is based
on reasonable suspicion at the time of the event to detain someone. Anytime
an officer is lawfully detaining someone for investigative purposes, they
can also exercise their power to check a person for weapons. This level
of belief is less than probable cause, which is exercised by police when
making an arrest.
NYPD statistics show that a very small percentage, out of the millions
of stops recorded every year, actually result in the finding of a weapon
or lead to an arrest. In further breakdowns the demographics point to
certain minority groups.
Looked at in isolation these statistics allude to a significant number
of stops based on reasonable suspicion being not only ineffective but
also racially motivated towards certain minority groups to the extent
their civil liberties are violated through their right to feel secure
against unreasonable searches.
However when analysed holistically, the number of stops within these minority
group communities reflect the identified crime areas in which they took
place. These parallel considerations are critical when analysing the effectiveness
of police powers, crime prevention and safety and security for the wider
community.
Have police gone beyond what they are authorised to conduct to the extent
that they base their stops on suspicion less beliefs targeting minority
black and Hispanic groups? We'd like to think not, however it raises
the question of monitoring process to ensure constitutional rights are
not being violated unnecessarily.
In the
criminal justice system when the standard of proof is based on beyond a reasonable doubt
it is done in such a way that judges and or jury members alongside council
and their clients are all present to see how it is and has been applied
to the law and facts presented. In the case of a police officer, the legal
standard of reasonable suspicion is applied by their own discretion, therefore
making it a far more subjective than objective process.
Therefore, will increasing the legal standard of proof for stop and frisk
powers from reasonable suspicion to probable cause better ensure the constitutional
rights of all Americans particularly those minority groups reflected in
the statistics against unreasonably searches and seizures? or will it
actually reduce the police ability to carry out the pursuit of criminals?
By raising the level of proof required to conduct a stop and frisk would
result in less unreasonable searches as police would only act on probable
cause and potentially change the disproportionate statics on number of
conducted searches versus arrests made and ultimately add another layer
of protection to American citizens constitutional rights and civil liberties.
Questions? Contact Musa-Obregon Law PC today.