What is the cons of frisk and stop?

Answer 1

A stop and frisk, or a Terry stop, allows law enforcement or an agent acting under law enforcement authority, to pat down an individual's outer clothing.

The law permitting this search is intended to (1) dispel the reasonable suspicion that the person is armed during a legal detainment (cop has a right to stop and detain the individual and the individual has an obligation to remain) or (2) to dispel any reasonably suspicion that the individual is carrying evidence of a crime or otherwise unlawful substances.

The cons of a stop and frisk are in the testimony of law enforcement in stating their belief that there was in fact "a reasonable suspicion"; in particular, while a cop in most states will be able to justify a suspicion of an individual on the street being armed, it is often tricky for the cop to show reasonable suspicion the individual is carrying something illegal.

It seems worthwhile to note here that the stop and frisk must be done during the lawful detainment of an individual, or else the cop must prove the individual consented to the search. If incriminating evidence is found, a defense can easily be raised that the defendant would not have consented. However, a political, if not legal issue, arises at this point as the defense lawyer would essentially be calling the cop a liar.

The cons of a stop and frisk is that, in court, it is often the credibility of the defendant against the credibility of the cop that determines what happened during the Terry stop and why.

Another View:

The above answer contains incorrect information. ANY stop made by an officer is going to be based upon "reasonable suspicion." "Reasonable suspicion" of WHAT? The 'reasonable suspicion of the officer that the individual may have committed a crime! The courts have ruled that - FOR THE OFFICERS SAFETY - they may do a Terry Frisk on subjects they have stopped on the street for interrogation. The officer does NOT need to be able to articulate that they believed the subject was armed, their own self-protection during the stop of a suspected criminal is justification enough!