Explain how law enforcement can intervene and educate children and adults how to stop these acts.

Assignment Question

The role of community oriented policing (C.O.P.) and school resource officers (S.R.O.) is to create safe and bully-free schools and intolerance. In 1-2 pages, give examples of bullying and intolerance. Explain how law enforcement can intervene and educate children and adults how to stop these acts.

Assignment Answer

Police Interactions and School Resource Officers: Standards, Justifications, and Effectiveness

Introduction

The standards and requirements governing police interactions with pedestrians, including questioning, stopping, frisking, and searching, are crucial aspects of law enforcement that impact individuals’ civil liberties and public safety. These standards have evolved over time through legal precedents and statutes to strike a balance between maintaining public safety and protecting individual rights. In this essay, we will explore these standards and requirements in contemporary law enforcement, focusing on Terry v. Ohio (1968) as a landmark case that shaped the justification for stop-and-frisk practices by police officers. Additionally, we will delve into the roles and effectiveness of school resource officers (SROs) in educational institutions and the contentious issue of arming teachers within school settings.

Part 1: Police Interactions with Pedestrians

1.1 Questioning Pedestrians

When police officers question pedestrians, they must adhere to certain standards and requirements to ensure that individuals’ constitutional rights are respected. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, including interrogations by law enforcement officers. The standard for questioning pedestrians is generally guided by the principles of “reasonable suspicion” and “articulable facts.”

Reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold compared to probable cause and requires officers to have specific, objective reasons to believe that criminal activity may be afoot. These reasons should be based on observable facts, not mere hunches. For example, if an officer observes a person engaging in suspicious behavior in an area known for drug trafficking, they may have reasonable suspicion to question that individual.

1.2 Stopping and Frisking Pedestrians

Terry v. Ohio (1968) is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the legal framework for “stop-and-frisk” practices by police officers. In this case, John W. Terry and two other men were observed by a police officer engaging in suspicious behavior near a store. The officer stopped and frisked Terry and found weapons. Terry challenged the search as a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The Supreme Court held that, under certain circumstances, a police officer may conduct a limited stop and frisk of an individual without a warrant and without probable cause. The Court established that the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity and that the stop-and-frisk must be brief and limited to ensuring the officer’s safety by detecting the presence of weapons.

1.3 Searching Pedestrians

Searching pedestrians is a more invasive police action compared to questioning, stopping, or frisking, and it generally requires a higher standard of justification. In most cases, a search of an individual’s person, belongings, or vehicle requires a warrant or probable cause. Probable cause refers to the reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime is likely to be found in the location to be searched.

However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as when an individual consents to a search, or when evidence is in plain view of an officer during a lawful interaction. Additionally, searches incident to arrest allow officers to search an arrestee’s person and the immediate area within their control without a warrant or probable cause, as long as the arrest itself is lawful.

1.4 Balancing Individual Rights and Public Safety

The standards and requirements police must use when questioning, stopping, frisking, and searching pedestrians are rooted in the need to balance individual rights with the duty of law enforcement to protect public safety. While the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, it also recognizes that there are situations where the immediate safety of officers and the public may require limited intrusions.

It is crucial that these standards are followed diligently to prevent potential abuses of power and violations of civil liberties. When police officers exceed their authority or act without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, they risk infringing on an individual’s rights and may face legal consequences.

Part 2: Terry v. Ohio (1968) – Was the Officer Justified?

Terry v. Ohio is a pivotal case that significantly impacted police procedures and the legal standards for stop-and-frisk encounters. In this section, we will examine the case and offer an opinion on whether the officer’s actions were justified.

2.1 Terry v. Ohio (1968)

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer’s actions, establishing the “Terry stop” and “stop-and-frisk” exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable cause requirements. The Court recognized that law enforcement officers often encounter situations where they have a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be occurring but lack the necessary evidence for a full arrest or search warrant.

The decision in Terry v. Ohio allows officers to briefly stop and question individuals if they have reasonable suspicion, and if they also have a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous, they can perform a limited frisk to ensure their safety.

2.2 Opinion on the Officer’s Actions

In our opinion, the officer’s actions in Terry v. Ohio were justified based on the specific circumstances of the case. The officer observed Terry and his companions engaging in behavior that he reasonably believed to be indicative of criminal activity, specifically casing a store for a potential robbery. This observation provided the officer with reasonable suspicion to stop and question them.

Furthermore, the officer’s concern for his safety and the safety of others in the vicinity was reasonable given that he had observed Terry and his companions behaving suspiciously near a store, which could potentially lead to a violent crime. The officer’s limited frisk was conducted to ensure that Terry and his companions did not possess weapons that could be used to harm him or others. This action aligns with the principles of the “Terry stop” as established by the Supreme Court.

While it is crucial to protect individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights, it is also essential to recognize that law enforcement officers often find themselves in rapidly evolving and potentially dangerous situations where they must make quick decisions to protect public safety. The Terry decision strikes a balance between individual rights and public safety by permitting limited intrusions when supported by reasonable suspicion and concerns for officer safety.

Part 3: School Resource Officers (SROs) and Arming Teachers

3.1 Duties of School Resource Officers

School Resource Officers (SROs) play a vital role in ensuring the safety and security of educational institutions. Their duties typically include:

1. Maintaining a Safe Environment: SROs are responsible for preventing and responding to safety threats within schools. This includes addressing bullying, student conflicts, and potential threats from outside individuals.
2. Law Enforcement: SROs are sworn law enforcement officers who can respond to criminal incidents on school grounds, investigate offenses, and make arrests if necessary.
3. Building Positive Relationships: SROs often serve as mentors and positive role models for students. They build trust and help create a positive school environment.
4. Emergency Response: SROs are trained to respond to emergencies, including active shooters or natural disasters, and provide critical support during crisis situations.
5. Education and Training: They educate students about law enforcement and safety issues, conduct drills, and offer guidance on topics like drug prevention and cyberbullying.

3.2 Effectiveness of School Resource Officers

The effectiveness of SROs in schools is a topic of ongoing debate. Proponents argue that SROs contribute to a safer school environment by deterring criminal activity, responding quickly to incidents, and building positive relationships with students. They can be a valuable resource for schools in addressing security concerns and ensuring a swift response to emergencies.

However, critics raise concerns about the potential for over-policing and the “school-to-prison pipeline,” a phenomenon where students, particularly students of color, are disproportionately funneled into the criminal justice system for minor offenses. Some argue that SROs’ presence can lead to a hostile school climate, where students feel surveilled and targeted.

The effectiveness of SROs depends on various factors, including their training, the school’s policies, and community expectations. To maximize their effectiveness, SROs should focus on building positive relationships, engaging in community policing, and prioritizing prevention over punitive measures.

3.3 Arming Teachers in Schools

The question of whether school teachers should be trained and permitted to carry firearms while teaching is a contentious issue that demands careful consideration. The following arguments outline both sides of the debate:

Arguments in Favor of Arming Teachers:

1. Immediate Response: Proponents argue that armed teachers can provide an immediate response to an active shooter situation, potentially saving lives before law enforcement arrives.
2. Deterrence: The presence of armed staff members may deter potential attackers from targeting schools in the first place, as they would face armed resistance.
3. Reduced Response Time: In rural areas where law enforcement response times can be lengthy, armed teachers may be the only immediate defense against threats.
4. Empowerment: Some believe that allowing teachers to carry firearms empowers them to take an active role in protecting their students and themselves.

Arguments Against Arming Teachers:

1. Safety Concerns: Critics argue that introducing firearms into schools can increase the risk of accidents, including unintentional discharges and the mishandling of weapons.
2. Training and Skill: Teachers are primarily educators, and their training is not focused on law enforcement tactics or handling firearms in high-stress situations.
3. Psychological Impact: The presence of armed teachers may create an environment of fear and anxiety among students and staff, potentially hindering the learning experience.
4. Focus on Prevention: Instead of arming teachers, resources should be allocated to prevention measures, such as improved mental health services, threat assessment teams, and enhanced security measures.

In conclusion, the decision to arm teachers in schools is a complex and multifaceted issue that should be carefully evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It requires a delicate balance between ensuring the safety of students and staff while considering the potential risks and consequences of introducing firearms into an educational environment. Collaboration among educators, law enforcement, and community stakeholders is essential to making informed decisions that prioritize the well-being of students and maintain a positive learning environment.

References

1. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
2. Kaplan, D. M., & White, M. D. (2017). The evolving police decision to frisk persons on the street: A comparison of racial and ethnic minority members and whites. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 1-13.
3. Kaminski, R. J., Digiovanni, C., & Downs, R. (2004). The use of force between the police and persons with impaired judgment. Police Quarterly, 7(3), 303-331.
4. Kupchik, A., & Bracy, N. L. (2018). Do school resource officers make schools safer? A national longitudinal study of their effectiveness in urban schools. Justice Quarterly, 35(3), 393-419.
5. Skiba, R. J., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity and effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063-1089). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Vasquez, B. E., & Johnson, L. B. (2019). SROs in schools: A review of the research. Journal of School Violence, 18(2), 121-136.
7. Warnick, A. L., & Kupchik, A. (2017). School resource officer discipline: A multiple perspectives study of how young adults’ decisions to misbehave in school affect SROs’ decisions to arrest. Journal of School Violence, 16(2), 222-237.