User:Firebird 62/sandbox

Making edits to wikipedia. TOO LITTLE INFORMATION.

The policy's effect on crime in New York City
When police officers make stops in NYC, there is a form that must be filled out by the officer explaining the situation and details of the stop. After the officer goes off duty, these forms are then entered into a database. There are 2 ways the NYPD reports this stop-and-frisk data: a paper report released quarterly and an electronic database released annually. In 2002 there were 97,296 “stop and frisk” stops made by New York police officers. Only 17.6% resulted in any fines or convictions, while the other 82.4% were entirely innocent. The number of stops increases dramatically in 2008 to over half a million with 88% innocent, peaking in 2011 to 685,724 stops with another 88% innocent. On average from 2002 to 2013 the number of individuals stopped without any convictions was 87.6%.

[Edit summary (MAJOR)] I changed the heading to something that didn’t sound so bias as well as add some statistics from an online source.

Origin of the stop and frisk policy
The stop and frisk policy was adopted from English law from a number of American courts. In accordance with English common law, without statutory provisions, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. Based on a standard which holds less than probable cause, this power is granted upon the standard of reasonable suspicion. It is a question of circumstances of each individual case that determines whether reasonable detention and investigation is validated.

[Edit summary (MAJOR)] A little bit of history about the stop and frisk policy outside of New York City.

Legislation pertaining to constitutional requirements of stop and frisk practices were made into an area of concern by the Supreme Court when they encountered the case of Terry v. Ohio. While frisks were arguably illegal, before this point a police officer could only search someone either after arresting them or obtaining a search warrant. In the cases of Terry v Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York, the Supreme Court granted limited approval in 1968 to frisks conducted by officers lacking probably cause for an arrest in order to search for weapons if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous. The Court's decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a "reasonable search".

[Edit summary (MAJOR)] Decisions by the Supreme Court introducing safety as grounds for reasonable searches.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1977 in the case of Pennsylvania v. Mimms that if a motor vehicle is lawfully stopped for any reason (in this case operating with expired license tags), the officer can order the driver out of the car to "reduce the likelihood that the officer will be the victim of an assault". The Court's decision disagreed with Pennsylvania's highest court when claiming the procedure is a "precautionary measure to afford a degree of protection to the officer".

[Edit summary (MAJOR)] The Supreme Court goes against Pennsylvania state rulings when addressing concerns for police officer safety.

Stop-and-frisk is not necessarily a new invention. In the early 80's if a police officer had reasonable suspicion of a possible crime, he had the authority to stop someone and ask questions. If, based on the subject’s answers, the suspicion level did not escalate to probable cause for an arrest, the person would be released immediately. This was only a “stop-and-question". The “frisk” part of the equation did not come into play except on two occasions: (1)If possession of a weapon was suspected, or (2)if reasonable suspicion of a possible crime escalated to probable cause to arrest for an actual crime based on facts developed after the initial stop-and-question. That all changed in the 1990s when CompStat was developed under then Police Commissioner William Bratton. High-ranking police officials widely incorporated the “stop, question and frisk”.

[Edit summary (MAJOR)]Introducing "frisk" into "stop and question".

What is the difference
I think Racingstripes is on to something. Instead of only talking about the policy in New York City, why not change the name of the page to "Stop-and-frisk" or "Stop-and-frisk in the United States" with a section about the policy in New York City. This way we can add sections with similar policies in different cities, as well as point out the differences between them, how they vary from city to city.Firebird 62 (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

United States
The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied with the right of habeas corpus, which is in essence the right to a hearing on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary. The ability to suspend habeas corpus is often equated with martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

At least two American lawmakers have stated on the record that, in their opinion, Section 1031 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 legalizes or authorizes martial law in the United States. Senator Mark Udall stated "These provisions raise serious questions as to who we are as a society and what our Constitution seeks to protect...Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the U.S. military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil."