Free Consultation412-281-6869

Stop and Frisk Laws in Pennsylvania

/in , /by

stop and frisk laws in pennsylvania The US Constitution gives all citizens the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizure; in most cases, this requires authorities to have a warrant before entering your home or searching your person or possessions. The exception to this rule is called “Stop and Frisk”, which gives police the right to stop you and frisk, or pat you down and look for illegal items or weapons. When can Stop and Frisk be implemented – and what problems are associated with this practice? Learning more about the procedure can help you understand your rights and what you should do if you are subjected to a Stop and Frisk pat down.

The History of Stop and Frisk

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers could detain or frisk a person if there is a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. If the police believe that the person stopped is hiding a weapon, they can frisk that individual to check for dangerous items. Terry v. Ohio granted authorities the right to search pretty much anyone they feel is behaving in a suspicious manner. Terry v. Ohio introduced the Stop and Frisk concept, which has evolved into the process used today. While this procedure was originally intended to improve police officer and public safety, it has been challenged in recent years, with a variety of groups leveling charges of racial profiling and unfair stops and seizures at police groups in Pennsylvania, New York and other states.

Stop and Frisk Components

  • Stop: A stop involves either a physical detention of an individual or a display of authority which results in an individual understanding they are not free to leave the area until the police release them.
  • Frisk: An officer will actually lay hands on the stopped individual and pat down their clothing to see if they are hiding or carrying any weapons or drug paraphernalia. A frisk is done over the clothing and is intended to protect the officer from harm by exposing any dangerous weapons right away.

Used as it was originally intended, Stop and Frisk should only be implemented when officers have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is engaging in criminal activity or hiding a weapon. In recent years, charges of abuse by police in some cities detail the Stop and Frisk practice as one that is used illegally against minorities. Residents in Pittsburgh created a Change.org petition challenging the practice and the entire concept of Stop and Frisk has been challenged in the city.

Stop and Frisk in Pennsylvania

Pittsburgh

A Pittsburgh resident created a Change.org petition to end Stop and Frisk within the city, citing several local and national cases in which police abused their power and overstepped boundaries, resulting in injury or even death for those stopped for a warrantless search. The petition cites some troubling statistics: 60% of those chosen for Stop and Frisk in the city are African American, even though African Americans make up only a quarter of the city’s residents.

Philadelphia

In July 2011, the ACLU and the Philadelphia Police Department reached a settlement in the Bailey v. City of Philadelphia case that required the city to begin to document Stop and Frisk statistics. Citing abuse of power by the police department and charging the city with unfair racial profiling practices, a group of 8 minority defendants sued the city. The settlement required the city to furnish reports and statistics regarding the citizens that were stopped and searched each year.

Data for 2014, the most recent year available, reveals that African Americans are more likely to be detained and searched in Philadelphia than their white counterparts – and that they are more likely to be detained without reasonable cause. Despite the still disproportionately high numbers, the actual number of stops has gone down since the city began actively tracking and reporting the data. Actually having to report a stop and detail both the reason for the action and the outcome may reduce stops simply due to race or other, unjustifiable factors.

Know your Rights

Are police in Pennsylvania and other states targeting specific minority or demographic groups for unfounded or unjustified warrantless searches? The ACLU and other groups, including the nonprofit Sunlight Foundation, believe so.

If you have been unfairly stopped and frisked or you have experienced any adverse interaction with authorities, you need the right team on your side. Contact us for help with your legal challenges and to learn more about protecting your rights when it comes to Stop and Frisk action in Pennsylvania.

Filming Police with the Pennsylvania Mobile Justice App

/in , /by

filming-police Racial profiling, over-policing and excess force are plaguing communities all over the country: Pennsylvania’s American Civil Liberties Union empowers Pennsylvanians with a new app designed to address law enforcement misconduct. The Mobile Justice PA app came about partly due to the instances in which Philadelphia police officers impeded or arrested citizens who were filming them.

The First Amendment protects Americans against governmental censorship, allowing freedom of speech. Law enforcement officers serve on behalf of the government and are public officials. Therefore, one would believe that the right to film police officers without concerns about legal repercussion would be expected; however, courts are split concerning this matter and are working toward a resolution.

The Right To Film Law Enforcement

Transparency in law enforcement is extremely important to the public. A Pennsylvanian’s ability to film police can provide valuable evidence related to government misconduct. Filming police officers is not legal in all 50 states; however, in numerous states where filming law enforcement is legal, there is a misconception that it is not. The Mobile Justice App is available in Pennsylvania, Arizona, California and 14 other states. The United States District Court for The Western District of Pennsylvania supports the right to record.

Smartphones Offer A Way For Pennsylvanians To Film Law Enforcement

Smartphones are everywhere, which means that the majority of the public can film police encounters with them. Ben Bowens is the communications associate at Pennsylvania’s ACLU. He states that, “ We are in such a society at this point where that’s [filming police] probably going to be happening anyway, every time there’s an incident, you always see people standing around with their cell phones videotaping.”

The Mobile Justice PA app allows individuals to:

  • Know their rights when they encounter or witness an incident involving law enforcement. With this app, users can attain valuable information by accessing the ACLU’s full “Know Your Rights” library with just the click of a button.
  • Document law enforcement misconduct via recordings and then securely submit the recordings of the incident directly to the ACLU of Pennsylvania.
  • Receive alerts from fellow Mobile Justice PA app users who are witnessing incidents in their area.
  • Know when and where the ACLU is holding action and events locally and throughout the state of Pennsylvania.

The Mobile Justice App Could’ve Made A Difference

Bowens describes a case in Fayette County in which the Mobile Justice app may have made a difference:

In 2012, Gregory Rizer was arrested and charged with violating Pennsylvania’s wiretap law because he used his phone as a means to audio-record Officer Kevin Lukart, a Point Marion police officer. He made the recording because he felt that Officer Lukart was extremely aggressive while questioning Rizer’s friend, Shannon Hughes. Rizer’s phone was confiscated. Eventually, his phone was returned to him; however, the SIM card storing the recording was missing. Consequently, thwarting his ability to offer evidence to support his accusations. In Oct. 2013, the case was settled.

Bowens states that with the Mobile Justice app, there is no reason to be concerned that the police officer (or anyone else) will go through your phone since as soon as you stop recording, the content is immediately sent to the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

Recording Law Enforcement Is Legal

Elizabeth Pittinger is the executive director of the Citizen Police Review Board in Pittsburgh. She states that traditionally, the statement made by an officer holds more weight than a civilian’s statement does, especially a civilian with a checkered past. According to Pittinger, there have been incidents in Pittsburgh involving law enforcement confiscating or breaking civilians’ phones. She believes that this app may reinforce the fact that it is okay to record incidents with law enforcement; while, reassuring individuals that their devices will not be broken or confiscated.

At DeLuca, Ricciuti & Konieczka, we have the benefit of understanding criminal cases and defense from both angles because all of our criminal defense attorneys are former assistant district attorneys. Our knowledge of the tactics the government uses in conjunction with our trial experience assists us in defending our clients here in the state of Pennsylvania. If you or someone you care about is facing criminal charges, please contact us today to schedule your complimentary initial consultation.

The First 48: What Reality TV Can Teach You About Your Miranda Rights

/in , /by

Viewers of the reality TV program “The First 48” know that the show follows a police investigation during the first forty-eight hours following a homicide. The show highlights the premise that the odds are stacked against the investigating team, “if they don’t get a lead within the first forty-eight hours.”

Police Investigators At Work

As the cases featured in the episode unfold, viewers watch as the investigators attempt to put a story together as to what happened, why and who is involved. Typically, police investigators depend on the subjects they are interviewing to freely offer information that could potentially incriminate them. Some viewers might be surprised to see just how frequently suspects waive their Miranda Rights and converse with the police without an attorney present. Often, it appears to be only those most experienced with criminal matters and those most savvy in dealing with law enforcement who immediately invoke their right to an attorney.

Invoking Miranda Rights Should Mean That Questioning Stops

When a person invokes their Miranda Rights, the police must cease questioning until an attorney is present. Viewers of “The First 48” know that this often appears to halt police investigations in their tracks. Sometimes, the investigating team is visibly distraught because without the suspect self-incriminating, the case can not immediately move forward.

Why You Should Always Request An Attorney Be Present

Most police investigators are honest, hard working people who want to serve their communities. However, mistakes can still be made and bias still exists. If you are a suspect in a criminal case or potentially involved in any way, you should not speak with the police without an attorney present.

If you find yourself detained by law enforcement, please remember the following:

  1. Despite what the police investigators may claim, they are not your friends. They are not there to help you. Only an attorney can do that if you are charged with a crime. The police are there to investigate, skillfully extract information and potentially charge and arrest you, period.
  2. If the police think that they have enough evidence to arrest you; they will. Talking to them and freely offering information that can and will be used against you is only making their job easier and your situation worse. They want to close the case and go home to dinner and their families. Invoking Miranda or not, either way you’ll be going to jail, at least until you can post bond. Don’t make your situation potentially far worse than it has to be by self-incriminating. Frequently, the evidence that the police use to obtain arrest warrants can be successfully challenged in court. It is your right to remain silent. Use it.
  3. The most important four words to remember whenever you have been read your Miranda Rights are, “I want a lawyer.” This is the only sentence you should speak after you have heard the words, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.”

All of the criminal defense attorneys at DRK Lawyers are former assistant district attorneys. We understand criminal cases and defense from both sides of the courtroom. We use our trial experience and knowledge of the government’s tactics to help defend our clients every day in the state of Pennsylvania. If you are facing criminal charges, please contact our team today. There is never a charge for your initial consultation.