The American Criminal Interrogation System And Its Significance

Institution is not an embodiment of theorist's great idea, but an action of theory on reality. So when trying to learn from the experience of other countries, we cannot only focus on the letter of the law, but also on the orderliness of its development. The writer is willing to draw the outline of the "stop and frisk" in America, discover the valuable theory tools, and show how the American judges resolve the similar dilemma, which is not only satisfying the needs of preventing and combating crimes, but also maldng a strong defense for people to be flee from unreasonable intrusions of the government. This way of introducing and analyzing the system of "stop and frisk" may provide new thoughts and offer greater help to improve our institution.This thesis is divided into five parts.In the first part, the history of "stop and frisk" is briefly outlined. Then the facts and the issues of Terry v. Ohio are discussed at length. In the majority opinions of this case, as stop is a ldnd of seizure, and frisk is a type of search, the Judges think that they should be under the judicial review. And it is the first time for the "reasonableness" to be introduced into the criminal procedure. By weighing and balancing the competing interests at stake, the U. S. Supreme Court recognizes the legitimacy of"stop and frisk". Many disputes are aroused after the construction of "stop and frisk". And the root of these disputes is the different explanations of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is primarily proved that the "reasonableness" should take the place of "probable cause" in this field.In the second part, reasonable suspicion which is the requirement of prompting a stop, is first discussed in detail. Police cannot take measures of stop at random because the stop is some kind of an intrusion of people's freedom. And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Correlation cases are explained by classifying on the standard of the source of the information. Even every factor of the information which comes from the observation of police is not related to the criminal activity, when putting them together in a particular situation, an outcome of reasonable suspicion is justified. And in deciding whether the police can arouse reasonable suspicion when the information comes from the informant, the accuracy and the degrees of discrimination of the information are the most important concerns. And then, the requirement of frisk are briefly analyzed in some cases, and it is showed that although the Judges of U. S. Supreme Court face the increasing pressure to expand the aim of frisk, they still insist that the purpose of frisk should be limited to securing the police and the people around.The third part of this thesis mainly discussed the means and principals of distinguishing between "subject confronted but free to go" and "stop", and discriminating between "stop" and "arrest". American judges use "reasonable person test" to fix the problem which is how to differentiate "stop" and "subject confronted but free to go" properly. The concept and features are clearly analyzed, and it is showed that how the American judges handle this theory tool under some exceptional circumstances. For determining what the difference is between "stop" and "arrest", this question must be resolved based on the particular facts of each case. And different factors of fact should be dealt with different principals. As far as the factor which is the length of the detention concerned, the police should employ the least intrusive means reasonably available to verify or dispel the officer's suspicion in a short period of time. And to those factors which are related to the place, the aim or the measures of the stop, it is required that the conduct of police must not be no more intrusive than needed. If the police fails to satisfy these requirements, the stop will be converted into a de facto arrest.The fourth part of this thesis mainly introduces the extension of "stop and frisk" which is to satisfy the needs of facts. It includes the extension of the purpose of "stop and frisk", the target of stop, the place of stop and the purview of frisk. The writer tries to outline the process of evolution of "stop and frisk" and show its operational status in reality.In the fifth part, it is mainly about "stop and frisk" in our country. The writer proves an opinion that the attribute of "stop and frisk" is in the purview of criminal power, and then analyzes the present conditions and defects of our legislation about "stop and frisk". At the end of this disquisition, the writer proposes that the theory tools in American cases are worth learning, and that we should improve the institution based on the adequate considerations of our country.