Reference no: EM133422389
Stop and Frisk
Question 1.) In Minnesota v. Dickerson, the Court discussed Arizona v. Hicks. In Arizona v. Hicks, the police found a stereo equipment in the apartment. The police could not determine whether the equipment was stolen. An officer moved the equipment in order to obtain the serial number. After reporting the number to the police headquarters, it was determined that the equipment was stolen. The Court reasoned that what happened in Dickerson bore analogy to what happened in Hicks. Read that part of the Court decision and discuss why the Court said there was an analogy between the two cases.
Question 2.) Discuss the reasoning of the Court in reaching the decision whether the police had reasonable suspicion to make the stop in Florida v. J.L, in Alabama v. White, and in Navarette v. California respectively.
Question 3.) To make a stop, the police need to have reasonable suspicion to believe the person is involved in a crime. In Navarette v. California, what was the crime the police believed that the suspect was involved in? What was the reasoning of the Court in concluding that the police had reasonable suspicion to believe the suspect was involved in that crime?
Question 4.) Based on the ruling of the Court in Illinois v. Wardlow, answer the following questions:
(a) Can the police establish reasonable suspicion based on one's presence in a high crime area?
(b) Can the police establish reasonable suspicion based on a person's unprovoked flight?
(c) Should a person have the right to go about his own business?
(d) Was the defendant's unprovoked flight indicating that he was going about his own business?
Question 5.) The law of State A provides that when the police lawfully stop a person the police may ask the person to identify himself by providing credible and reliable identification. Refusal to identify oneself as required by the police is an offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000. Is the law constitutional?