Full Answer Section

• Duration: Arrests last until charges are filed or the person is released, while stop and frisks are brief encounters intended to be completed quickly.

Similarities:

• Both involve temporary seizures of an individual’s freedom of movement.
• Both are subject to Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Both require articulable justification based on specific and objective facts.

Levels of Proof:

• Arrest: Probable cause – a more demanding standard requiring a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed.
• Stop and Frisk: Reasonable suspicion – a less demanding standard requiring articulable facts leading a reasonable officer to suspect criminal activity or danger.

Impact of Situation:

The context of the encounter influences the Court’s scrutiny:

• High-crime areas: May justify lower thresholds for reasonable suspicion due to increased safety concerns.
• Minority communities: Courts are cautious of discriminatory profiling and heightened scrutiny applies.
• Community policing: Collaborative interactions with the public may receive more leeway.

Court Decisions:

• Terry v. Ohio (1968): Established the stop and frisk framework based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or threat to officer safety.
• Brinegar v. United States (1991): Limited stop and frisk to pat-downs for weapons based on reasonable suspicion.
• Atkins v. Virginia (2001): Extended stop and frisk to limited searches for non-weapon contraband discovered inadvertently during a lawful pat-down.

Question 2: Under what circumstances is a stationhouse detention considered “reasonable” by the Court? What circumstances is a stationhouse detention considered “unreasonable” by the Court? Discuss the reasoning cited by the Court.

Reasonable Stationhouse Detention:

The Court considers a stationhouse detention reasonable when:

• Investigative purpose: Detention is brief and directly related to a specific investigation for which probable cause exists.
• Limited duration: Detention lasts only as long as necessary to complete the investigation or obtain arrest warrants.
• Alternative means: Less intrusive means are unavailable or impractical.

Unreasonable Stationhouse Detention:

The Court deems stationhouse detention unreasonable when:

• No specific investigation: Detention lacks a clear investigative purpose or probable cause.
• Excessive duration: Detention extends beyond the time needed for a specific investigation.
• Coercive conditions: Detention involves unnecessary force, intimidation, or interrogation techniques.

Court Reasoning:

• Fourth Amendment protection: The Court balances legitimate law enforcement needs with individual liberty protected by the Fourth Amendment.
• Minimizing intrusion: Detentions should be minimally intrusive and avoid unnecessary burdens on freedom.
• Specificity and limitation: Investigations must be specific and detentions limited to their duration.

Case Examples:

• Dunaway v. New York (1979): Unreasonable detention due to lack of specific investigative purpose and extended duration.
• Hayes v. Florida (1983): Reasonable detention based on probable cause and brief questioning to confirm suspicions.

Conclusion:

Stop and frisk and stationhouse detention are distinct yet interrelated tools for law enforcement. Understanding the legal standards and the Court’s reasoning behind them is crucial to ensure constitutional rights are protected while allowing legitimate police investigations.

Sources:

• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
• Brinegar v. United States, 500 U.S. 594 (1991)
• Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 308 (2001)
• Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (1979)
• Hayes v. Florida, 470 U.S. 811 (1983)
• American Civil Liberties Union: