Chapter 8 Terry Intercept: The power of the police

On October 13, 1995, the Miami Police Department received an anonymous call to report that there were three black youths at a certain bus station, and the one in a checkered sweater had a pistol hidden in his body.Two policemen arrived at the bus station at lightning speed six minutes later, and they saw three black men standing there, looking like they had nothing to do.The police stepped forward and ordered them to put their hands up on the roof of the car. Sure enough, a pistol was found from the man named JL in a checkered sweater. JL is still sixteen in ten years.According to state law, it is illegal to carry a weapon without a license or under the age of eighteen.But in court, his defense lawyer said that it is illegal for the police to search a person on the road for no reason.The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits law enforcement officers from conducting unreasonable searches of citizens, and anonymous reports are not grounds.Since the police search is illegal, the things found cannot be used as evidence.The court granted defense attorneys' motion to exclude evidence.The police station had no choice but to appeal.The Court of Appeal held that the police station received a report and had reason to search and that such a search was lawful.But the Florida Supreme Court overturned the appeals court ruling, holding that such searches were illegal under the Constitution. On March 28, 2000, the Supreme Court of the United States made a unanimous final decision on the case of Florida v. JL: relying solely on anonymous reports without other clues and evidence, the police have no power to stop or search citizens on the road.

However, not long before that, on January 12, the Supreme Court had just ruled on another case involving police powers, Illinois v. Wadlow. The story happened on September 9, 1995. Undercover police officers Nolan and Harvey of the Chicago Police Department drove to patrol an area with a high drug crime rate.They saw a man by the wall, Wardlow, the defendant in the case, holding a black bag.Seeing that he was being noticed, the man suddenly ran away.The police immediately turned around, drove the car around the corner, and finally forced the fleeing people into a dead corner.Officer Nolan got out of the car immediately and found a pistol and bullets from Wadlow's bag.In court, the defendant's defense lawyer filed a motion that it is illegal for the police to stop and search civilians without reason, so the pistol found cannot be used as evidence in court, and it is not counted if it is found.But the court disagreed, arguing that the police search in the circumstances was lawful.Wardrow is a person with a criminal record, the court convicted him of illegal possession of weapons.This time, however, the appeals court held that the sudden flight was not sufficient to warrant a reasonable suspicion that police could lawfully stop and search.The verdict was overturned.After appealing again, the Supreme Court of Illinois upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. This time, the Federal Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the State Supreme Court, affirming that if the police find any clues of suspicious behavior, it can be regarded as a reasonable suspicion, and they have the right to rely on such evidence. Suspicious stop and search, doing so without violating the Fourth Amendment, is legal.

The police are an institution of legitimate violence.American policemen have guns, nightsticks, pepper spray, and handcuffs, all of which can be used anytime and anywhere. Sometimes a little thing will handcuff people.It is common knowledge that police must obtain a court warrant to search a citizen's home.For citizens, "home is like a castle, where the wind and rain can enter, but the king cannot enter."If the police do not have a search warrant from the court, let alone a search, even entering the door of a house requires the consent of the owner. If the owner gets upset and tells the police to leave, the police will not dare to delay.

But it's different on the street.According to the current law, the police have the right to stop suspects on the street and search them if necessary.This is also understandable, because the streets are public places, and the police have the responsibility to prevent some crimes from happening and ensure public safety. But in practice, things are often not so simple and clear.There is a homeless person in New York City, who is called a beggar in Chinese, who lives in an abandoned trash can in the park all year round.When the police were investigating a criminal case, they searched the trash can. Of course, they didn't think of going to court to apply for a search warrant.It turned out that some illegal things were found.In court, the defense attorney for the homeless man said it was the police who broke the law.The homeless person has lived here for a long time, all his belongings are in the trash can, and there are all his personal belongings, so this abandoned trash can is his "home", and the police are there without a search warrant. A citizen's home was illegally searched.Whether this abandoned trash can should be regarded as a public place or a private home, you may not be able to tell right away.

The most classic judgment on the legality of police stop and search is the 1968 Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio.In that case, the police saw a person walking down the street looking into a store, walking past, turning back, and still looking into the store.After passing by, I whispered to another person, and that other person also looked back and forth at the store.In this way, the two people went back and forth to look at the store a dozen times.Then they, along with a third person, planned to get out of here.At this time, the police felt that these people were very suspicious and decided to stop them. As a result, illegally carried weapons were found on them.

The defense lawyer believes that it is not improper for a citizen to go back and forth to look at a store, and the police have no right to suspect such behavior and stop and search a citizen who has not acted illegally.But the Supreme Court ruled that police have the right to stop and search the streets if they have sufficient grounds to suspect suspicious behavior, and that such stops and searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment.Since then, this kind of interception and search has been called "Terry interception" in US law.It is legal for the police to conduct a telly stop.The problem is to judge what kind of reasons can constitute the legal basis for Telly's interception.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized in a series of judgments that Taley interception cannot be abused, such as excessive violence, racial discrimination, and so on.This latter point is particularly valued by civil rights organizations.Statistics show that the proportion of blacks stopped by the police is much higher than the normal population ratio.However, whether the behavior of the police is illegal can only be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and cannot be generalized.Therefore, the individual cases appealed to the Supreme Court have the significance of legal interpretation and have received widespread attention.

In the above two cases, the ruling of Illinois v. Wadlow is easy to understand, but the decision of Florida v. JL shocked the national police.In the future, when they receive anonymous reports, they will have to think twice before taking action.why is it like this?The female justice Ginsberg, who announced the ruling on behalf of the Supreme Court, made it clear: If the police are allowed to stop and search on the grounds of anonymous reporting, the safety of each of us will be threatened. This is a typical American concept: any power must be limited, otherwise it will inevitably be abused.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court never considers the factual results of police searches when deciding on police conduct appeals.In the case mentioned above, whether the police stop and search is legal has nothing to do with the results of the search, and it has nothing to do with whether the person being searched is actually a good person or a criminal.Restrictions on police powers begin before the act is committed, regardless of the consequences of the act.The logic here is very clear. Although in the three cases mentioned above, the police actually found weapons and avoided potential crimes, which is objectively beneficial to social security, but if the police are judged by success or failure The scope of power, will in fact encourage the abuse of power by the police.

The police in the United States are often the protagonists in the news, and they are often involved in lawsuits.The reason is that in a country like the United States, the police must be a very active and active force, otherwise social security cannot be guaranteed.Generally speaking, in the United States, ordinary people are not encouraged to stand up and fight gangsters when they see violent crimes. On the contrary, people are often warned by officials not to try to take action in some dangerous situations, and only call on people to report to the police as soon as possible.People take it for granted that policing is the job of the police.When law and order is bad, people complain about the police.However, there is no lettering on the gangster's face. If the police work too hard, they will inevitably bump into good people.Americans are particularly sensitive to the self-aggrandizement of government power, and they immediately complain about the abuse of power by the police as soon as there is a bump.

Ordinary people don't have many opportunities to deal with the police. What often happens is to ask for help, such as asking for directions.But almost all of them have at least some dealings with the police, that is, getting traffic tickets, because driving over the speed limit is very easy to happen.Under normal circumstances, people who let the police catch speeding people will accept the punishment, accept the ticket, and mail the check.However, legally speaking, this does not mean that as long as officers and soldiers catch robbers, they are robbers.It is written on the ticket that the police of the administrative branch of the government charged you with speeding violations. You can defend yourself and go to the court at a certain time on a certain day, and the court will make a decision.The courts are the judicial branch of the government, separate from the executive branch of the police. If you have spare time to fight such a small lawsuit, do everything possible to find some reasons, and usually you can reduce some penalties.According to the law, you have the right to ask the police to produce evidence, such as speedometer records, and you have the right to have an expert check whether the police speedometer is accurate, and so on.If the police let you be found, then you can probably get away with it.You and the police are equal in court, so the police who fined you must also appear in court on time.You also have the right to ask the court to change your court date for work or family reasons.If the police are too busy to arrive at the court when the court opens, the court will have to dismiss the charges, and you will avoid this ticket and save more than a hundred dollars.