An investigatory stop is short duration detention of an individual by enforcement of the law. Investigatory stop, also termed as a temporary or terry stop and arrest, requires the law enforcement officer to have reasonable suspicion of an individual’s engagements in criminal activity to be valid. The criminal justice system defines reasonable suspicion as the minimum or lowest burden of proof that a police officer can apply in relation to an articulable fact that, when combined with rational interpretations, permits the outcome that accepts the need for the law enforcement officer to enact the investigatory stop. However, during this temporary detention, there are limits to what can be inferred as understandably necessary o dispel or confirm an officer’s suspicion. On the other hand, arrest by police refers to putting an individual on restraint or in custody with the objective of persuasive abidance to law. Police arrest can also occur in the course of a criminal procedure with the aim of preventing an individual from committing an offense or holding them to answer to a criminal charge.
The United States Supreme Court holds that law enforcement officers must have particularized and objective reasons, as well as a totality of circumstances to suspect an individual of criminal activity before imposing an investigatory stop on them. Similarly, law enforcement officers have to diligently pursue an investigation technique and a route to findings that ensures the duration of an investigatory stop to dispel or confirm their allegations of suspicion is lasts the shortest period as possible. The Fourth Amendment grants individuals a right against unreasonable seizures and searches which conform to an investigatory stop. Therefore, police officers can violate individual liberty if they conduct the investigatory stop unreasonably. Law enforcement officers, therefore, must understand that while an investigatory stop does constitute a quick search and seizure, it does not mean an arrest. Probable cause that an individual has committed a crime is vital if a law enforcement officer is to make an arrest.
Individual liberty guarantees personal freedom from law enforcers’ interference, which means certain conditions must be fulfilled for a law enforcement officer to interfere with individual freedom. Civil and common law jurisdictions provide clearly stipulate these conditions. When law enforcement officers indicate probable cause that an individual charged is probably guilty of a criminal offense, a judicial officer or a court issues an arrest warrant. Alternatively, a law enforcement officer can arrest an individual attempting to commit a crime or committing a crime in their presence. Furthermore, a law enforcer can arrest an individual when they reasonably believe an unlawful act has been committed and arrest the guilty party (McConville et al., 2017). An indictment, defined as a formal written document accusing an individual of a criminal act and affirmed by a grand jury and presented to a court for the trial of the accused party, provides sufficient cause for arrest.
Additionally, individuals on parole who are found guilty of violating their conditions of release can be arrested. In addition to meeting these conditions before the arrest, the law requires law enforcement officers to apply minim force necessary to bring a suspect into custody and prevent any harm from befalling them. Therefore, law enforcement officers need reasonable suspicion and probable causes, respectively, in conducting both investigatory stops and arrest stops.
References
McConville, M., Sanders, A., & Leng, R. (2017). The case for the prosecution: Police suspects and the construction of criminality. Routledge.
write