Identify the three possible alternatives for applying the Fourth Amendment to stops and frisks, and explain why the U.S. Supreme Court adopted alternative three

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

There are three possible interpretations of the Fourth Amendment that could be
applied to stops and frisks. Under the first interpretation, the Fourth Amendment
would only apply to full searches and arrests, so what officers do in other situations,
including stops and frisks, would be totally left to their discretion.
The second possible interpretation takes the exact opposite view. Under this
interpretation, even brief stops are arrests, and a pat-down or frisk is a search. Since
the Fourth Amendment requires that these be supported by probable cause, the
police can't do anything as far as stopping and frisking a person unless probable
cause exists.
Finally, the third interpretation admits that stops and frisks are searches and seizures,
thus subject to the Fourth Amendment. However, a stop and frisk would be viewed as
a minor search or seizure, far less intrusive than an arrest or a full-blown search. Thus,
officers still have to justify making a stop and frisk with facts, but since the intrusion is
lesser, fewer facts are needed to conduct a stop and frisk than would be to make an
arrest and/or do a search.
The Supreme Court chose the last alternative. Under this alternative the Court felt that
the Fourth Amendment gave police enough power to freeze suspicious events and
detain people briefly to find out if criminal activity may be going on. The amendment
also gives officers the ability to protect themselves by frisking some of the people they
stop. But officers can't freeze an event or frisk a person on a mere hunch: stops and
frisks have to be "reasonable.".
How is reasonableness determined? First, there must be a careful balancing process.
The need to control crime has to outweigh the invasion against an individual's right in a
particular situation. Second, police can't stop and frisk a person on mere suspicion.
They still need facts, not just as many as would amount to probable cause, but still
enough so that later on a neutral judge can review an officer's decision to see if they
would be justified.