The Professor
Diamond Member
- Mar 4, 2011
- 16,752
- 25,010
There is no way to predict what the SCOTUS would do in a stop and frisk case; however if the stop and frisk is conducted within reasonable non-arbitrary guidelines it is at least possible that the Court may find they are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. There is no absolute requirement that probable cause is needed for all searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court ( SCOTUS) has already made certain limited exceptions to the Fourth Amendment's prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures. In these cases, probable cause is not required; instead, the SCOTUS allowed the use of a balancing test. Here is how one reputable source describes the balancing test:
“In general, searches and seizures usually require a warrant supported by probable cause. There are a few circumstances where law enforcement officers can conduct searches and seizures without a warrant, as long as the search and/or seizure is reasonable. Usually the reasonableness requirement is satisfied by the existence of probable cause.
“In the context of roadblocks and checkpoints, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search or seizure than the probable cause standard. The balancing test outlined by the Supreme Court weighs the state’s interest in the objective of the roadblock against the effectiveness of the roadblock in achieving that objective and the intrusion of the roadblock on an individual’s privacy.”
Can the Police Set Up Roadblocks for Any Reason? - FindLaw
In the case of Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), The Supreme Court ruled that traffic stops were not necessarily a violation of the Fourth Amendment:
The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers' licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 663. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Pp. 37-40.
Michigan State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
The traffic stops (or road blocks) must meet certain criteria to be considered constitutional. For example, at a minimum they must be set up by supervisory personnel; the public must be notified in advance of such stops; and the stops must be according to a specific pattern, that is all people are stopped or every third or fourth person is stopped (this is to prevent police from improperly profiling).
If the SCOTUS uses the same rationale in a stop and frisk case, they may rule such searches to be permissible. However, the States may still prohibit them. Eleven states have laws which prohibit road blocks, so even if the SCOTUS finds stop and frisk to be permissible under the Constitution, the States have the right to ban such activities.
“In general, searches and seizures usually require a warrant supported by probable cause. There are a few circumstances where law enforcement officers can conduct searches and seizures without a warrant, as long as the search and/or seizure is reasonable. Usually the reasonableness requirement is satisfied by the existence of probable cause.
“In the context of roadblocks and checkpoints, however, the Supreme Court has ruled that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search or seizure than the probable cause standard. The balancing test outlined by the Supreme Court weighs the state’s interest in the objective of the roadblock against the effectiveness of the roadblock in achieving that objective and the intrusion of the roadblock on an individual’s privacy.”
Can the Police Set Up Roadblocks for Any Reason? - FindLaw
In the case of Michigan State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990), The Supreme Court ruled that traffic stops were not necessarily a violation of the Fourth Amendment:
The rule that a search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment absent individualized suspicion of wrongdoing has limited exceptions. For example, this Court has upheld brief, suspicionless seizures at a fixed checkpoint designed to intercept illegal aliens, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, and at a sobriety checkpoint aimed at removing drunk drivers from the road, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U. S. 444. The Court has also suggested that a similar roadblock to verify drivers' licenses and registrations would be permissible to serve a highway safety interest. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 663. However, the Court has never approved a checkpoint program whose primary purpose was to detect evidence of ordinary criminal wrongdoing. Pp. 37-40.
Michigan State Police v. Sitz 496 U.S. 444 (1990)
The traffic stops (or road blocks) must meet certain criteria to be considered constitutional. For example, at a minimum they must be set up by supervisory personnel; the public must be notified in advance of such stops; and the stops must be according to a specific pattern, that is all people are stopped or every third or fourth person is stopped (this is to prevent police from improperly profiling).
If the SCOTUS uses the same rationale in a stop and frisk case, they may rule such searches to be permissible. However, the States may still prohibit them. Eleven states have laws which prohibit road blocks, so even if the SCOTUS finds stop and frisk to be permissible under the Constitution, the States have the right to ban such activities.
