¶ … police officers should follow to stop people for questioning. Situation

"High-crime zones" are recognized by constitutional law: people in such areas have Fourth Amendment safeguards, distinct from those within different areas of those towns, states or cities. This step is representative of a big shift from equality of constitutional protections of every citizen. In some cases, regarding the Fourth Amendment, ranging from Adams v. Williams to the Illinois v. Wardlow case, the U.S. Supreme Court has considered neighborhood's character as one of the aspects in finding "sensible suspicion" in order to stop an individual. The neighborhood's character is not a sole validation criterion for stopping someone, but it has given two factors as the required circumstances: "high-crime zone" and 'unwarranted' running away from the police (Ferguson and Bernache, 2008). Lower level courts have also allowed high-crime zones and other otherwise innocent deeds to be considered reasonable enough suspicion to stop an individual. Therefore, in the case about a police officer and an 18-year-old in a baseball cap, it could be assumed that it was technically reasonable or legal to stop the teenager, since the area is known as a high drug-crime zone. Such determinations as legislatively selected 'red zones' or crime 'hot-spots' make some court decisions simpler. Nonetheless, the actual definition will be determined exclusively through cases, while litigants make their arguments about the particular patterns, areas, and their importance to the specific case in the court.

Situation 2

In the case of Hiibel v. the 6th Nevada Law Court District, the police got a telephone call about an assault. According to the caller, they had witnessed a woman being assaulted by a man in a silver and red GMC truck. The department sent an officer to the area to conduct an investigation, and he spotted a truck with the same description parked at the roadside. Close to the car, there were some skid marks, which made the police officer assume that the vehicle had stopped suddenly. There was a man standing next to the vehicle, and there was a woman inside. The police officer asked for identification from the man eleven times, and yet the man did not give any. He (the man) even mocked the officer;...

Eventually, the officer apprehended the man since he had refused to comply (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Casebriefs). The man's arrest was based on charges of "intentionally resisting, obstructing or delaying a public police officer in the discharge or attempt to discharge a legal office duty," which violated a Nevada law. The court of trial found that the man "delayed and obstructed an officer (public officer) in his attempt to discharge his task." In a different scenario, a police officer stopped a certain teenage girl because she turned away from him as he drove by. The police officer pulled over and went towards the girl because she avoided eye contact with him. This case is different for the Hiibbel case, since the girl did nothing to make the policeman question her. The police officer only pulls over because the girl does not want to look in his direction; this is not necessarily because she is doing something illegal. With regard to the 5th Amendment, most people observe "there may be a case in which there is significant allegation that an identity furnish while being stopped may have given the office a connection in the series of evidence required to charge the individual with a different crime (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada - Casebriefs). In such a situation, the court may consider the applicability of the privilege, and the appropriate remedy if there was a Fifth Amendment violation." In the case of the teenage girl, there is no context seen, hence it was not appropriate for the officer to stop her.
Situation 3

In this case, during roll call, a Sergeant tells an officer that he has been giving out a photograph of a certain serial rapist that has been operating in the northern side of their town. While he is on patrol at the northern side, the officer sees a certain individual who matches the description given of the serial rapist. This brings the question of whether it is proper to stop the individual in reference to the picture, and whether stopping him may lead to a search and to a possible arrest. The answer to the two questions is yes, because, according to the 4th Amendment, "there will be no warrants issued, except due to possible cause (Rice)." The Constitution gives no modification of the definition of "possible cause." It is a Supreme Court task, and it has also used the standard of possible cause to some unwarranted actions. The phrase "reasonable suspicion" does not have a constitutional derivation. It was designed by the judiciary to define a measure of suspicion that is lower than possible cause. The definition of logical suspicion is based on some factual situations that may cause a rational officer to be convinced that there is an occurrence of criminal activity. Reasonable cause is distinct from possible cause (the assumption that…