What Chicago Experience Suggests about "Stop and Frisk"

Last Saturday, I discussed what "Stop and Frisk" is, and that the U.S. Supreme Court approved its use as a police law enforcement street tool in Terry v. Ohio (1968). The primary intent was to allow the police to get guns off the street before they could be used in the commission of a crime, rather than to gather evidence after the crime for prosecution.

The Supreme Court saw a "stop" on the street as a less intrusive form of a seizure, and the "frisk" ("pat down") on the street as a less intrusive search, which nevertheless had to be objectively "REASONABLE," based on all the facts known to the officer at the time. The stop and frisk would be over in a few seconds, and an innocent person stopped would be quickly on his way.

Stop and Frisk has understandably provoked adverse reaction in minority communities. It seems un-American to be stopped on the street, required to answer question and patted down -- even if the stop lasts 30 seconds or less, and you're allowed to go your way.


In Chicago, there was a reaction. The ACLU and some leaders of the black community lobbied for additional restrictions on the use of Stop and Frisk. They got them.

According to a Feb. 1 report by ABC 7 Chicago, "For decades when Chicago police stopped and frisked someone on the street, they only had to fill out a small card called a "Contact Card." It required simple, basic information about who was stopped and why."

Beginning Jan. 1, a new Illinois law regulates when cops can stop and pat down people in public, and additionally requires officers to fill out a two-page "Investigatory Stop Report" - essentially a full-blown police report.

IL SB1304 provides:

The officer will record the following data on the stop card: the officer's subjective determination of the gender and race of the person stopped; the reason for the stop; date, time and location of the stop; whether a protective pat down or frisk was conducted of the person; and, if so, the reason for the protective pat down or frisk, and whether it was with consent or by other means; whether or not contraband was found during the protective pat down or frisk; and, if so, the type and amount of contraband seized; whether or not a search beyond a protective pat down or frisk was conducted of the person or his or her effects; and, if so, the reason for the search, and whether it was with consent or by other means; whether or not contraband was found during the search beyond a protective pat down or frisk; and, if so, the type and amount of contraband seized; the disposition of the stop, such as a warning, a ticket, a summons, or an arrest; if a summons or ticket was issued, or an arrest made, a record of the violations, offenses, or crimes alleged or charged; and the name and badge number of the officer who conducted the detention.


Information obtained via a FOIA request, covering from Jan. 1-Oct. 24 shows, "Stops over that same period have plunged to 91,438 -- down 82 percent from 513,161 a year earlier."

Opponents of SB1304 contend that the time-consuming form that officers now must fill out for each stop has played a significant part in the drop. They further argue that if a cop makes no stops, he will never be charged with making unlawful stops.

Proponents argue there are fewer stops because the new reports prevent unlawful stops.

Dec. 2, 2016 Dispatch report states, "Chicago experienced more than twice as many homicides (77) in November" 2016, than it did in November 2015, and over 700 for the year. Chicago Fraternal Order of Police president Dean Angelo says less-aggressive policing no doubt coincides with the spike in Chicago murders and shootings.

So it seems that in Chicago, citizens are more secure against searches, and less secure against being shot to death. A cause/effect relationship is unprovable, but the numbers are suggestive.

Posted: QCOline.com December 17, 2016

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

"Stop and Frisk" - a Layman's Guide

What is Stop and Frisk?

Both presidential candidates discussed it. President-elect Trump was for it. Mrs. Clinton was against it. Neither explained it.

In this piece, I explain it so a person without law school training can understand it. In the next, I'll deal with the controversy surrounding it.

The starting point for the inquiry is the Fourth Amendment which provides that before a search or seizure can be constitutional there must be "probable cause" for that search or seizure.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons ... and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The courts have held that probable cause means "reasonable cause" or "reasonable grounds." If all the facts known to the officer make it "reasonable" for him to search or arrest, he may constitutionally do so. To be constitutional, the search must be REASONABLE.

In Terry v. Ohio in 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer "briefly stops" a suspect on the street and inquires as to his identity, and what he is doing, even though the officer might lack "probable cause" to arrest and haul a person off to jail, or conduct a full search -- if the police officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. The officer could take the further step of "frisking" the defendant if he had a "reasonable suspicion" that the person stopped might be armed or dangerous to the officer.

This reasonable suspicion -- like probable cause -- must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's "hunch." The bottom line is that the officer's conduct still must be REASONABLE as required by the 4th Amendment, which prohibits only unreasonable searches or seizures.

But fewer "specific and articulable facts" are generally thought to be necessary to make a brief stop and/or frisk REASONABLE than would be required to justify a full "custodial arrest," and/or a complete search of the person.


The governing idea behind allowing Stop and Frisk is that it was to be a rather brief, minimal intrusion, done on the street, and an innocent person stopped would be free to go in a few seconds.

Stop and Frisk was perceived to involve a brief inquiry as to the person's identity, and what he was about. But even for such a brief stop "specific and articulable facts" were required. And if additional "specific and articulable facts" existed to justify a "pat down search" -- such as a bulge in the person's pocket indicative of a gun -- the officer could pat down the person's outer clothing.

An additional justification was that unlike traditional Fourth Amendment search for evidence in a criminal case after the commission of the crime, Stop and Frisk was envisioned as a law enforcement street-tool - designed rather to prevent commission of a crime and to insure officer safety during the brief stop.

Stop and Frisk was in the first instance designed to be a public safety measure -- akin to the often times far more pervasive airport security check, designed to keep terrorists and bombs off air liners. The inconvenience to law abiding passengers is deemed reasonable given the danger of planes being blown from the sky, with the death of all passengers.

Stop and Frisk has understandably provoked adverse reaction in minority communities. If you are a law-abiding citizen it is damn unpleasant, if not humiliating, to be stopped on a public street, required to answer questions and patted down even if the "stop" lasts no more than 30 seconds and you're allowed to go on your way. But the same can be said of security checks of law-abiding citizens boarding civilian airliners.

(Editor's note: This is the first of two columns looking at the constitutionality of the law enforcement tool known as Stop and Frisk.)

Posted: QCOline.com December 9, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Was Fidel Cuba's George Washington? No!

ABC’s Jim Avila says that “Fidel Castro was Cuba’s George Washington.”

Really? Washington was the American commander in the field during our war for independence against Britain. Fidel Castro was the commander in the field in Cuba’s revolution to overthrow the Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista. There the similarity ends.

Washington (and his fellow founders) created a government designed primarily to insure the national security and personal liberty to the American people. The U.S. Constitution that Washington et al. created made no provision for national health care or universal public education. Those matters, at least in the first instance, were left to the states to deal with as they saw fit.


Fidel Castro eschewed liberty for the Cuban people and instead opted for “equality.” In lieu of personal liberty, the Cuban people were given free national health care, and a free public education -- a public education where every student was taught precisely what the Castro government wanted taught.

Washington’s America is the nation-of-choice to which people from around the world have chosen to immigrate for 200 years. It has also been a place from which any dissident could freely leave.

Nobody immigrates to Cuba. Castro’s Cuba is a prison from which people escapee across shark-infested waters to America: 120,000 in 1980 alone.

When the American Revolutionary War was over, neither Washington nor his administration imprisoned Americans who opposed the Revolution, or Americans who agitated against out new Constitution, or who spoke or worked to undermine Washington’s presidency.

When Castro’s seized power, hundreds of members of Batista’s government were rounded up, quickly tried and executed.

When Washington became president, private ownership of American businesses and farms, large and small, saw no change.

When Castro became prime minister, foreign corporations and plantations were “nationalized” -- i.e., confiscated at far below their fair market value. Castro’s First Agrarian Reform Act limited the size of land holdings and forbade foreign property ownership. The pretext was to “develop a class of independent farmers.”

Instead, the state essentially assumed land ownership, with the farmers becoming mere government employees.

Then (1959) came the purges of military and government officials and the suppression of any media critical of Castro’s policies. Even Manuel Urritia, the Revolution’s first president was purged.

Washington avoided foreign alliances, and in his “farewell address” cautioned his countrymen “to avoid entangling alliances.”

Castro, instead, established diplomatic relations with the Communist USSR, and accepted 100 Russian “advisers” to help organize his “defense committee.” When Castro agreed to purchase oil from Russia, American refineries on the island, refused to process the oil.

This gave Castro his justification for their expropriation.”What followed was President Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs invasion/fiasco. Kennedy’s ineptitude allowed Castro to consolidate his power.

On May 1, 1961, Castro announced an end to democratic elections in Cuba. At year’s end, Castro declared himself a Marxist-Leninist and announced the Cuban government was adopting communist economic and political policies.


When Castro agreed to place Russian nuclear missiles in Cuba, an American Naval Blockade followed, and for 13 days the world was on the brink of nuclear war.

Washington tried to create an America without parties or factions. Castro opted for one party. In 1965, he merged his revolutionary cadre with Cuba’s Communist Party, and became its head.

Washington refused to become a king. After being freely elected twice, he retired after eight years and became a private citizen. A free election followed.

Fidel Castro, a Stalinist, clung to power from 1959 until 2008 -- 49 years!

He turned Cuban power over to his brother.

Castro-philes credit Castro with setting up 10,000 schools, and increasing Cuban literacy to 98 percent. They extol his “universal health care system.” But there was a terrible price.

Unions lost their right to strike. An independent press was eliminated. The Catholic Church and other churches were shackled. Dissidents were imprisoned or executed. People drive cars from the 1950s. In June 2012, Cuba’s National Statistics and Information Bureau disclosed that the current average salary of Cubans had reached 466 pesos (US $22) a month!

Fidel Castro? Mao, maybe. But not George Washington. Schools and health care? Si.

Liberty? No.

Posted: QCOline.com December 2, 2016
Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea