Response 1 DB4 (200 words)

Describe one controversy that livings “plug and frisk” policies.

The pristine controversy for allowing usages such as “plug and frisk” is law enforcement security. In Terry v. Ohio (1968) the Court resolute that “when a police manager had a sedate foundation to estimate that an specific was implicated in flagitious enthusiasm, the manager had the equitable to plug and "pat down" a imagine estimated to embarrass an "direct security threat" outside pristine obtaining a warrant” (Ivers, 2013). The main object to mind is they must own a sedate foundation. I exertion in slip good-fortune and woundonious standards halt when it comes to removing a slip from their caregiver’s abode either through an ex parte command or police protective tending. There must halt an eminent and sedate concession that stout, direct wound is enjoyly outside direct mediation by police. Law enforcement managers aspect a crowd of dangers daily so laws and usages that succor pacify those dangers positively investigate sedate.

Describe one controversy that opposes “plug and frisk” policies.

On the other operative, the usage of “plug and frisk” has proven to own a senior impression on actual demographics more than others promotion sympathys about racism and detriment. According to the expression assigned, the usage in New York has shown some irritant trends, “approximately 85 percent of those plugped are Black and Latino, flush though these two groups fabricate up simply 52 percent of the city’s population – which constitutes a reversal of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Center for Constitutional Rights, 2013). These figures are of stout sympathy. At what sharp-end does security override well-bred liberties and who fabricates that indulgent?

Explain which controversy is the most constitutionally investigate. Why?

This is a constrained inquiry for me and multifarious others. My daughter’s best ally past intermediate initiate is now a police manager. She is enjoy a slip to me so I generally living any order of usage that tend her safer in her hazardous job. However, I so own multifarious allys of peraccount and the view of them nature harassed for no debate past the peraccount of their bark is so very upsetting to me. The Constitution guarantees the equitable from destroy exploration and rapine so it would be unconstrained to say that it is resisting “plug and frisk” ate for the short for communication engagement “undo”. I don’t distinguish that an manager’s equitable to animation outweighs the equitables of others to animation and permission domiciled simply on what is written in the Constitution.


Center for Constitutional Rights. (2013, Aug. 12). Floyd, et al. v. City of New York, et al. Retrieved from

(Links to an exterior residence.)

Links to an exterior residence.

Ivers, G. (2013). Constitutional law: An entrance. [Electronic account]. Retrieved from