SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article Link 4.1: Ross, D. L., Myers, J. J. (2009). Officer Safety Trumps Passenger Privacy: Arizona v. Johnson. Criminal Justice Review, 34(3): 468-481.

In a unanimous 2009 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Fourth Amendment authorizes officers to frisk vehicle occupants during a traffic stop if there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is armed and dangerous. Situations reasonably suggesting the possible presence of weapons by any or all seized persons during legitimate traffic stops now affirmatively allow an immediate show of authority to neutralize the potential danger. The decision resulted from the court’s balancing interests under the Reasonableness Clause of the Fourth Amendment. The nature and extent of the passenger’s privacy interest in bodily integrity was weighed against the government’s interest in officer safety. Officer safety trumped passenger privacy. Although there are those who would claim that the current decision is but another step toward dissipating the Bill of Rights provision as it relates to matters involving the automobile, the decision is more of an evolution than an outright abandonment (Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 1971). The Fourth Amendment mandates that all searches and seizure be reasonable. This article discusses the evolution of Fourth Amendment law as it relates to frisks involving vehicles and its occupants. This research traces the evolution of these frisks from its earliest roots under Carroll v. United States (1925), to its inception under Terry v. Ohio (1968) and finally, to the most recent decision, Arizona v. Johnson (2009). Society’s privacy interests and police officers’ safety interests are explored from a practical and workable context such that an appropriate balance of conduct may result when conducting legitimate traffic encounters.

  1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
  2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
  3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
  4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
  5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

 

Journal Article Link 4.2: Reitzel, J., Piquero, A. R. (2006). Does It Exist? Studying Citizens’ Attitudes of Racial Profiling. Police Quarterly, 9(2): 161-183.

A controversial issue in policing is the alleged use of racial profiling by police to stop, search, question, or frisk citizens. Currently, only a small amount of empirical research exists concerning the practice of racial profiling. The empirical evidence that does exist has shown substantial minority over-representation in both police stops and searches. Moreover, almost all studies to date have focused on empirical study of police practices, thus leaving out one crucial element—the perspective of citizens. In this study, the authors use data from a random sample of New York City residents to study their perceptions of—and experiences with—racial profiling. In particular, factors are examined that relate to the perception that racial profiling is widespread, justified, and the extent of direct experience that citizens have had with racial profiling.

  1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
  2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
  3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
  4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
  5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

 

Journal Article Link 4.3: Recent Legal Developments. (1985). Criminal Justice Review, 10(2), 61-67.

Once again, the Review highlights a collection of significant Supreme Court decisions in the area of criminal justice. The Court mainly 'fine-tuned" various Fourth Amendment principles, most notably the Terry "stop and frisk" and the Carroll automobile search doctrines.

In deciding the following cases, the Court repeatedly stated its view that the need for a less restricted, more efficient police investigatory process could sometimes outweigh individual rights. However, despite this general "pro police" view, the Court did indicate that it is not always willing to subvert individual rights to the investigatory process. For example, in Winston v. Lee, the court refused to force a suspect to undergo major chest surgery in order for the police to gain possible evidence of a crime. The Court rejected the state's argument that investigative needs were paramount. In Hayes v. Florida, the Court called for the suppression of fingerprints obtained during a detention which was not supported by probable cause. In Garner v. Tennessee, the Court limited a police officer's right to use deadly force. These cases demonstrate that although the Court may, on balance, be pro law enforcement, it will not give police officers absolutely free rein as some commentators have feared.

All case summaries were prepared by Michael R. Neuenkirch, a third year law student, Georgia State University College of Law.

  1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
  2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
  3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
  4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
  5.  How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?