|
The Good News About Philadelphia's New Stop and Frisk Policy - PART ONE |
The Good News About Philadelphia’s New Stop and Frisk Policy
Commonwealth v. Jackson
By Attorney Joe Mitchell, “Your Harvard Attorney”
You have all probably heard about Mayor Nutter’s Stop and Frisk policy in the neighborhoods. If you have a criminal record you are probably going to stopped and frisked. Did you know that evidence obtained during a “stop and frisk” (i.e. Terry stop) can be used against a person only when the police officer had a good enough reason for the stop under the Pennsylvania and U.S. Constitutions? Here’s the rule: if drugs, guns or other contraband are seized in violation of a defendant’s Constitutional Rights, none of the evidence obtained during the search may be used against the person searched. Let’s look at this a little more closely:
Both the United States Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution guarantee, as a matter of law, protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Specifically, the law requires that police officers establish a “reasonable suspicion” in order to conduct a “stop and frisk.” And if the police fail to establish “reasonable suspicion” for a “stop and frisk” then stopping someone and checking them for weapons constitutes an illegal stop and search. This doesn’t mean that the police are going to stop frisking young men in the neighborhoods, it just means that they can’t use any evidence they recover, like guns or drugs, if they are just on a fishing expedition.
In the 1997 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case, Commonwealth v. Jackson, 698 A.2d 571 (Sup. Ct. 1997) the Supreme Court held that reasonable suspicion was not established by an anonymous tip because the police should have investigated the stituation further by a means other than a stop and frisk. In Jackson, a Philadelphia police officer received an anonymous tip over his police radio that there was a man wearing a green jacket carrying a gun. The caller also provided the police officer with the location of the man, but no other details. The police officer found several other individuals at the location, but only one person wearing a green jacket. So: the individual did fit the descprition given in the tip and was in the right location, but the Commonwealth failed to show that this individual was doing anything to cause suspicion of criminal activity. Without any additional information which could constitute “reasonable suspicion,” the police officer’s search of the man in the green jacket was illegal. Even though the police officer found a box containing 14 packets of cocaine when searching the individual, the evidence could not be used against him, and was suppressed by the Court, because the search was improper.
I will examine other aspects of the Stop and Frisk Law in Part 2 of this Stop and Frisk Series, coming in several weeks. Stay tuned!
Attorney Joe Mitchell “Your Harvard Attorney” has practiced criminal law in the Greater Philadelphia Area for over 12 years. He is committed to aggresively fighting for his client rights and he does the research. He gives free phone and written consultations to inmates who can afford an attorney. He can be reached at 215-557-7111 and by mail at 2 Penn Center, Suite 520, Philadelphia, PA 19102. www.joemitchellattorney.com
Attorney Joe Mitchell “Your Harvard Attorney” has practiced criminal law in the Greater Philadelphia Area for over 12 years. He is committed to aggresively fighting for his client rights and he does the research. He gives free phone and written consultations to inmates who can afford an attorney. He can be reached at 215-557-7111 and by mail at 2 Penn Center, Suite 520, Philadelphia, PA 19102. www.joemitchellattorney.com
Read more at: . |
