What is the "stop-and-frisk" doctrine?
"Stop-and-frisk" (also called Terry Search) is defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons where a police officer observes an unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous. (Manalili vs. CA, G.R. No. 113447. October 9, 1997)
How should the stop-and-frisk be carried out?
● The police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter's outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officers experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him. It should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply.
● We now proceed to the justification for and allowable scope of a stop-and-frisk as a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons, as laid down in Terry, thus:
We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.
Other notable points of Terry are that while probable cause is not required to conduct a stop-and-frisk, it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. (People vs. Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67. February 4, 2003)
●“Stop and frisk” searches (sometimes referred to as Terry searches) are necessary for law enforcement. That is, law enforcers should be given the legal arsenal to prevent the commission of offenses. However, this should be balanced with the need to protect the privacy of citizens in accordance with Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
The balance lies in the concept of “suspiciousness” present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not rely on a single suspicious circumstance. There should be “presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity.” The Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a reasonable search. (People vs Romana, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014)
The balance lies in the concept of “suspiciousness” present in the situation where the police officer finds himself or herself in. This may be undoubtedly based on the experience of the police officer. Experienced police officers have personal experience dealing with criminals and criminal behavior. Hence, they should have the ability to discern — based on facts that they themselves observe — whether an individual is acting in a suspicious manner. Clearly, a basic criterion would be that the police officer, with his or her personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act.
In his dissent for Esquillo v. People, Justice Bersamin reminds us that police officers must not rely on a single suspicious circumstance. There should be “presence of more than one seemingly innocent activity, which, taken together, warranted a reasonable inference of criminal activity.” The Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Certainly, reliance on only one suspicious circumstance or none at all will not result in a reasonable search. (People vs Romana, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014)
Dual purpose
A stop-and-frisk serves a two-fold interest:
- the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and
- the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer. (People vs. Chua)
Terry search vs. search incidental to a lawful arrest
The concepts of a "stop-and-frisk" and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. are two types of warrantless searches which differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected and in their allowable scope. (Malacat vs. People, G.R. No. 123595, December 12, 1997)
2. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence. (Malacat vs. People) The “stop and frisk” search was originally limited to outer clothing and for the purpose of detecting dangerous weapons. As in Manalili, jurisprudence also allows “stop and frisk” for cases involving dangerous drugs. (People vs Romana)
3. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made -- the process cannot be reversed (Malacat vs. People). In "stop-and-frisk" searches, a search and seizure should precede the arrest. (People vs. Chua)
1. A search incident to a lawful arrest presupposes the existence of a probable cause for the arrest, where the person is taken under the custody of the arresting officer. While probable cause is not required to conduct a “stop and frisk,” it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop and frisk.” A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. (Malacat vs. People)
2. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the arresting officer may search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter may reach for a weapon or for evidence to destroy, and seize any money or property found which was used in the commission of the crime, or the fruit of the crime, or that which may be used as evidence, or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence. (Malacat vs. People) The “stop and frisk” search was originally limited to outer clothing and for the purpose of detecting dangerous weapons. As in Manalili, jurisprudence also allows “stop and frisk” for cases involving dangerous drugs. (People vs Romana)
3. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made -- the process cannot be reversed (Malacat vs. People). In "stop-and-frisk" searches, a search and seizure should precede the arrest. (People vs. Chua)
0 Comments
Post a Comment