X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
ON STOPS, FRISKS, AND TRESPASS To the editor: I am writing to clarify certain comments attributed to me in the article about Virginia v. Hicksthat appeared in the April 28 issue of your publication [" Do Not Enter," Page 1]. There are three specific comments I would like to clarify for the record. The clarifications might seem overly technical and of not much consequence to your readers. Yet the subtleties are very important for the Richmond Police Department and those well-versed in the principles of criminal law. First, the article attributed to me the comment that the trespass policy allows police officers to “stop people who they don’t recognize as residents.” However, in my interview, I used the word approach, not stop. The difference is that a person who is approached by a police officer is free to walk away, whereas a person stopped by police is not free to leave. Second, it also attributed to me the comment that “police may not search someone unless they have ‘reasonable suspicion’ that the person may be armed and dangerous.” However, in my interview, I used the word frisk, not search. The difference is that a frisk is a pat down of the exterior clothing of a person based on reasonable suspicion. A search goes further than a frisk and includes looking in pockets, etc. Reasonable suspicion does not justify a search. An officer needs probable cause (and a warrant or an exception to the search warrant requirement) to search a person. Finally, it attributed to me the comment that after the Virginia Court of Appeals decision, “the city told its police officers that they could no longer enforce the trespass policy at Whitcomb Court.” However, in my interview, I said police officers could no longer enforce the trespass policy at Whitcomb Court by using the Richmond Redevelopment Housing Authority list of banned persons to satisfy the notice requirement of the trespass statute and that officers could no longer enforce the trespass policy on the streets and sidewalks of Whitcomb Court. I also said that officers could still enforce trespass violations on RRHA property if the officer could otherwise satisfy the requirements of the trespass statute. Alicia R. Zatcoff Legal Adviser Richmond Police Department Richmond, Va.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.