ABSTRACT Ti le of Thesis : AN ANALYSIS OF THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ATTITUDE , BELIEF , OPINI ON, AN D DEMOGRAP HIC COMPONENTS OF VOLUNTARY FORFEITURE OF ONE ' S FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN ORDER TO PERMIT POLICE OFFICERS THE USE OF NEW CONCEALE D WEAPONS DETECTION TECHN OLOGY De gree candidate : Diane Hill Vann , Esquire De gree and Year : Master of Arts , 2002 Thesis directed by : Professor and Chai r Cha rles Wellford Department of Criminology and Crimina l Justice The primary purpose of the st udy is to determine and analyze relationships between the major components of the participants ' opinions , attitudes , and b e lie fs as to the effectiveness a nd willingness of individuals to voluntarily forfeit their Fourth Amendment Constitutional rights to permit the use of the ne w Concealed Weapons Detection Technology ( " CWDT " ) . Th e ne w CWDT , as described in his study is capable of performing hands-off , no n- in rusive body searches for contraband such as plastic explosives , drugs , and concealed weapons , specifically conceal e d guns . The study questions the Constitutionality of permitting police officers the us e of such CWDT , and the Constitutionality of one ' s voluntary forfeiture of a Constitutional right to permit such use . Data collected for the study is from 100 residents of Madis o n , Wis consin , and Washington , D. C., aged 18 years or older . The study analyzes Frequencies , Crosstabs , Chi Square , and Pearson ' s(r) and Spearman ' s(r 5 ) . The st udy although conducted before September 11 , 2001 , found that crime and terror remain great oppressors in the Nation , and that citizens are desperate for a resolution . The study reveals that the great majority of the study par icipants consider CWDT a positive solution . AN ANALYSIS OF THE CORR ELATI ON BE TWEEN THE ATTITUDE , BELIEF , OPINION , AND DEMOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS OF VOLUNTARY FORFEITURE OF ONE ' S FOURTH AME NDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IN ORDER TO PERMIT POLICE OFFICERS THE USE OF NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTION TECHNOLOGY by Diane Hill Vann , Esquire Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School o f the Universi y of Maryland , College Park in partial fulfillme n of the requirements for the degree of Ma ster of Arls 2002 Advisory Committee : Pro f e ssor Char l es We ll fo rd , Cha i r Pro fess o r Den ise Gottfred son Pro f es sor Al Zumbrun ?Copyright by Diane Hill Vann , Esquire 2002 FOREWORD The accomplishments of this Thesis I gratefully share with the s udy participants of Madison , Wisconsin and Washington , D. C . I thank the participants for their full cooperation and patience in completing the somewhat time- consuming survey instrument . I also thank the participants for the sincere interest in the study they expressed to me . ii DEDICATION I dedicate this Thesis and all of my efforts to my precious Mother Charlyne Daniels Hill who ascended into Heaven during its completion . I also dedicate it to one of my Thesis Advisor , Professor Al Zumbrun ' s Daughter who also ascended into Heaven during the completi o n of this Thesis . Finally , I dedicate this Thesis to my family without whom this Thesis would not be . To my patient , motivating , and loving Husband , Alton Lee Vann , who has been my survivor ; and to my three beautiful , supportive , and caring Daughters , Stephanie S . J . Vann Cox , LaShea Lee Vann , and SunShine Louis e Vann . ii i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge the guidance and support of my Thesis Committee of t he Crimin ology Department at the University of Maryland : Professor Charles F . Wellford , Professor Denise Gottfredson , and Professor Al Zumbrun . I am truly grateful to have had this particular Thesis Committee not only because of their academic prestige and excellence , but also because of their willingness and ability to recognize a student ' s emotional needs as well as academic needs . I also thank in that regard , Professor Sally Simp son of the Criminology Department at the University of Maryland for her full cooperation and support . iv TABLE OF CONTENTS foreword . ll Dedication . iii Acknowledgements iv Table of Conte n ts . V List of Tables xi Chapter I . I NTRODUCTION . 1 Chapter II . LITERATURE REVIEW 10 A. Fourth Amendment Issues Introduction . 10 The History of the Constitution . 17 The History and Purpose of State And Federal Powers . 23 The History and Purpose of The Fourth Amendment . 25 Historical Background and Legal Implications of searches and Se izures . 26 The Government I nvolvemen t Aspect of Forfeiting Fourth Amendment Rights . 33 States ' Involvement - Police Power and the Fourteenth Amendment . 33 Federal Involvement - Enumerated Powers . 34 Procedural Due Process 35 Substantive Due Process . 35 The History and Purpose of The Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 36 Authorizing Voluntary Forfeiture . 41 Mo dern Day Appre ciation of the Fourth Ame ndment . 45 Modern Day Search and Seizure Issues . 46 Warrantless Searches and Seizures . 49 V Unreasonable Searches and Seizures . 54 The Healing Aspect of Concealed Weapons Detector Technology 57 The Constitutionality of New Concealed Weapons Detector Technol ogy . 60 What Interests Are Protected by the Fourth Amendment? . 63 Valid Consent Searches Under The Fourth Amendment . 66 B. The Impact of Fear of Crime on Attit udes. 74 Fear of Crime Theory . 76 Victimization -- Risk and Perception . 77 Related Perceptions to Fear of Crime . 79 Age and Gender as Predictors of Fear of Crime . 84 The Victimization or Vulnerability Perspective of Fear . 87 Populations Reported to Suffer Victimization . 93 The Elder ly Population 93 Women as a Population . 94 The Racial and Ethnic Minorities as a Population 98 Other Populations 99 Social Scientists Dif fering Opinions on Fear of Crime . 99 Crime-Fear Relationship . . 100 Recent Developments in the Fear of Crime Literature. . 101 Behavioral Response to Crime and Fear of Crime . 102 What Worries U. S . Urban Life Communiti es . . 103 C . Changes in Society as a Result of Concea l e d Weapons Current Crime Statistics . . 105 Psychological Reactions to Criminal Victimization . . 107 Crime , Statistics , and Concealed Weapons . 107 vi Availability of Concealed Weapons . . 109 Handguns , Concealed Weapon of Choice in Violent Crime . . 110 Prevalence of Handgun Use in Violent Crime . . 114 Police Officers Injured in Assaults with Concealed Guns . . 115 Citizen ' s Power to Pass a New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology Law . 116 I n itiatives or Referendum . 117 Arguable Righ sand Wrongs of Citizen s Forfeiting Their Consti tu tional Rig hts . 120 Po l ice Ha r assme n t , Int i mi da t ion , a nd Racial Prof iling . . 128 D. House Resolution 666 Exclus i o na r y Ru le Reform Act . 135 Endn o t es . . 136 Chapter III . METH ODOLOGY . 1 65 Ma j or Researc h Quest i on . 1 65 Deve l opme n t of t h e Study I nstrume n t . . 169 Instrume n t Validity . . 170 I nstrume n t Rel i ab i li t y . . 171 De finiti on s . . 173 Subpopula ti o n Subs ec t ion . . 1 76 Vi c timi zatio n Subsect i o n . . 1 77 Ne w Con ceal e d Weap o n s De t ection Techn o l ogy Subsectio n . . 177 Fe ar o f Crime Subs ecti o n . . 179 Study De sign . . 1 8 1 The De mogra phic a nd Ge ogra phic Dime n s i o n s o f the Study Populati o n . .1 8 1 Ge ne r a l Cha r ac t er is t i cs of th e Study Population . . 1 82 Da t a Co llect i o n Sc he dul e . . 184 Samplin g Des i g n s and Proce dures . 1 85 Study Instrume nt . . 185 Da ta Proce ssing Procedures . . 185 Co rrel a tions . . 1 88 A Sample Sche dul e of Instrume n ts . . 18 9 Summary . 194 vii Endnotes . . 199 Chapte r I V. RE ULTS . . 2 0 2 Surve y Respo ndents Summary . 2 0 2 Rac e . . 2 0 3 Gender . . 2 0 3 Religi o n . . 203 Age . . 2 04 Tables 1 through 4 . . 204 Marital Status . . 207 Dependents . . 207 Education . . 207 Profession . . 208 Tables 5 through 8 208 Income . 209 Victimization . . 209 Belief In the Use of the Ne w Co ncea l ed Weapons De t ection Techn o l ogy . 209 Tab l es 9 hro ugh 11 . 210 Belief in Wh ere the New concealed Weapons Detection Technology Shou ld be Located . . 213 Tabl e 12 . . 2 14 Belief in Wh o Should Ha ve Contro l Over the Use of the New Concealed Weapons De tecti o n Te chnology . . 217 Tabl e 13 . . 218 Fear of Crime f o r Family Members . . 2 1 8 Table 14 . . 219 Fae o rs of Fear . 22 0 Age . . 220 Time of Day . 22 1 Crime Most Feared . 22 1 Wh ere Fe arful of Victimization . . 222 An a lyses . . 223 Be lief that the Ne w Concealed Weapons Detector Te chnology Should be Delivered Immediately to Police Officers . . 225 Tabl e 15A . 227 viii Belief the New Concealed Weap o ns Detection Te c hnology Infringe a Person ' s Four h Am ndment Righ . 228 Table 158 . M . 2a 3d 1i son and D. C . Respond e nt s ' Belief in Wh o Should Control Use of New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology* Madis on and D. C . Respondents Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right for New Concealed Weapons Detector Te c hnology . . 232 Table 15C . . 234 Madison and D. C . Respondents Fear Crime Victimization for Self or Family Member* Madison and D. C . Respondents Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right For New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology . . 235 Table 150 . . 237 Madison and D. C . Respondents ' Be lief that Curfews Reduce National Crime* Madison an o d. c . Respondents Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendment Constitutiona l Right for the New Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . . 238 Table 15E . . 2 40 Hypot heses . . 241 Research Question One : Gender . 241 Results . . 241 Madis on and D. C . Results . . 241 Research Question Two : Race . 242 Results . . 242 Research Question Three : Age . . 243 Results . . 243 Research Question Fo ur : Neighborhood . . 244 Results . . 2 44 Research Question Five : Victimization . . 245 Results . . 2 46 Respondents ' Victimization. . 2 47 ix Family Members ' Victimization . 247 Research Question Six : Income . 247 Resul s . . 248 Research Question Seven : Locale . 249 Results . . 249 Summary of the Results . . 250 Discussion of Findings . . 254 Summary of Research Findings . . 254 Independent Variable Summary . . 255 Statistical Correlations . . 257 Implications for Further Research . . 259 Summary . . 262 Endnotes . . 264 Chapter V: Concl usions . . 287 Endnotes . . 298 Appendix The Study Survey Instrument Questionnaire . . 299 Glossary . . 314 List of References . . 316 X LIST OF TABLES 1 . Frequ ncy Tables , And When Appropriate , Descrip ive Statistic : Race Of Madison and D. C . Respondents 204 2 . Frequency Tables , And When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Gender Of Madison And D. C . Respondents 204 3 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descrip ive Statistics : Religion Of Madison And D. C . Respondents 204 4 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Age Of Madison And D. C . Respondents 204 5 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Stat istics : Martial Status Of Madison And D.C . Respondents 208 6 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Madison And D. C . Respondents with Dependents 208 7 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Education of Madison And D. C . Respondents 208 8 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Profession Of Madison And D. C . Respondents 208 9 . Frequ e ncy Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Yearly Income Of Madison And D. C . Respondents 210 10 . Frequency Tables , And , Wh en Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Victimization Of Madison And D. C . Respondents And Or A Family Member 2 10 11 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Madison And D. C . Respondents Believe New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology Infringes Fourth Amendment Rights ; xi Madison And D. C . Respondents Wo uld Forfeit Their Fourt h Amendment Constitutional Right For New Co ncealed Weapons D tector Technol ogy ; Madison And D. C . Respondents Believe New Co ncea led Wea p ons Detector Should Be Delivered Immediately To Pol ice Officers To Help Fight Crime And Violence 210 12 . Frequency Tables , And , When Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Where Madison And D. C . Respondents Want Th New Co ncealed Weapons Detectors Located 2 14 13 . Frequency Tables , And , Wh en Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Madis o n And D. C . Respondents ' Belief In Who Should Control Use Of New Concealed Weapons De t ec t or Technology 2 1 8 14 . Frequency Tables , And , Wh en Appropriate , Descriptive Statistics : Madison And D. C . Respondents Fear Crime Victimization For Self Or Family Member 2 19 15 . Cross Tabulations , Chi Square And Pearson ' s(r) Tables A. Madison And D. C . Respondents Believe New Concealed Wea pons Detector Technology Should Be Delivered Immediately To Police Officers To Help Fight Crime And Violence* Madison and D. C . Respondent s Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right For New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology ; 227 B. Madison And D. C. Respondents Believe Ne w Concealed Weapons Detector Technology Infringes Fourth Amendment Rights * Madison And D. C . Respondents Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right For New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology ; 231 C . Madison And D. C . Respondents ' Belief In Who Should Control Use Of New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology* Madison And D. C . Respondents Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendment Constitutional Right For New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology ; 234 xii D. Madison And D. C . Respondents Fear Crime Victimization For Self And Family Member* Madison And D. C. Respondents Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendment Cons itutional Right For New Con ealed W a ons De ector Technology ; 237 E . Madison And D. C . Respondents ' Belie Tha Curfews Reduce National Crime* Madison And D. C. Responden s Would Forfeit Their Fourth Amendmen Constitutional Right For New Concealed Weapons Detector Technology 240 xiii CHAPTER I : I NTRODUCTION The Na ional Institute of Justice (hereinafter referred o as , the " NIJ " ) , a division of the United Sa es Justice Department , sponsored specific research and development for new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Toward that endeavor , the Federal Government made available approximately $4 . 5 million to fund new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Since March of 1995 , through its National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technologies Center-Northeast , NIJ began initiating funds for field tests on three hands- off , and nonintrusive concealed weapons detection technologies 1 , inter alia . These three concealed weapons detection technologies are : Passive Millimeter Wave Imagi ng ; 2 Low - Frequency Electromagnet ic Radiation ; 3 and Magnet ic Gradient Measurements 4 ? The NIJ also funded a joint research effort to initiate four other weapons detection technologies . The NIJ a nd the U. S . Department of Defense through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency explored the following weapons detection systems : Low-Level Scattered X-Rays and Computer Image Processing ; 5 Millimeter Wave and Long-Wave In frare d Receivers ; 6 Radar and Ul trasound; 7 and , Low- 1 Fre quen c y Magnetic Imaging 8 ? These additi o nal new l ec hn o log ie s were intended to be suitable for fix e d-s ite o p e rati o n , such as placeme n t in doorways , and hand held . Howe v e r , although these four systems are viable , they are e xcl ud e d fr om the study for the sake of diminuti o n . Th e ne w Co nc ealed Weapons Detection Technology i d e nti fi e d fo r this study is touted to have the c apability to d e tect concealed weapons on a person ideally before a vi o lent c rime is committ ed in our schools , on our streets , on our airplanes , or in any other vulnerable location . Concealed weapons plays an essential role in extreme tragedies such as the tragedy , which took pla ce at 9 Columbine High School , in Littleton , Colorado ? This tragedy was a catalyst in forcing the Nation to a c kn o wledge the cruel and brutal consequences of carrying concealed weapons 10 , specifically , concealed guns . Numerous other school shootings occurred after that tragedy . In New York City , another horrific tragedy chilled the consci o us of the Nation . It , too , centered on carrying concea led weapons . Ne w York City police officers shot and kill ed an i nnocent , unarmed person 11 . The police officers involved in this tragedy , however , perceived that the victim wa s carrying a concealed weapon . It became 2 evi ent that he was not . This tragedy demonstrates that it is just as perilous to be perceived carrying an illegal , concealed wea pon , as i is to actually carry and use one . Both the Columbine and the New York shooting tragedies ended in senseless deaths . Numerous similar , irresponsible killings involving concealed weapons have occurred since that tragedy . These tragedies , as well as well-publicized media- 12 repor ed crime statistics have made the Nation aware more than ever before of the key role concealed weapons play in the growing number of violent crimes and senseless deaths committed in the United States . Most disturbing to the public is he easy access , and growing aggressive use of 13 concea l e d weapons in publ i. c pla ces . The Nation ' s anger and trepidation over the senseless concealed weapons violence is expressed througho ut political , legal , and social forums , resulting in a new national agenda . The agenda challenges the governmen t to produce some surefire methods to protect the general public , especia lly schoo l - aged c hildren , and our at-risk law enforcement community from th e infliction of harm from those carrying con cea l ed wea pon s , especially concealed guns . 3 Tragedies such as those described abo ve possibly could have be e n prevented if the new Concealed Weapons De ec io n T c hn o l o gy discussed in this study were in place . Th e study addresses the prospect of law e nforc eme nt o fficials having access to such equipment to de ec wh n a suspect is carrying c oncealed weapo nry and co n traban The primary purpose of the study is twofold : 1 . ) to garner the general public ' s opinions and beliefs whether the use of the new CWDT is a violation of the Fourth Amendment ' s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures ; and 2 . ) to determine from the general public ' s opinions and beliefs whether they would voluntarily forfeit that constitutional right for the purpose of police officers using t he n e w CWDT to fight crime , violence , and terrorism . The study was principally interested in the Respondents ' response as to whether they would be willing to permit the use of these new concealed weapons detection technology even if its use were considered unconstitutional . The actual research question of interest was : 1.) Whether in the Respondents ' opinion police officers ' use of this new conceal e d weapons detection technology would infringe on the Constitutional 4 rights afforded c iti ze ns under the Fourth Amendment of the United s ?ates Constitution 14 , and , 2 . ) If so , whether the Respondents would vol untarily f orfeit the i r Fo urt h Amendment rights for use of t he new CWDT if they thought doing so would dete r cr ime , violence , a nd terrorism in o ur Nation . Some of t h e survey responses of secondary underlying interest to the study pertain t o the potential effectiveness of the new CWDT . Such as whether , in the Respondents ' opinion , police officers ' use of Concealed Weapo ns Detection Technol ogy as described in the st udy would decrease crime , including terrorism ; and whether , in the opinions of the Respondents , there would be p oten t i al for a proa ctive deterrent effect . The deterrent effect discussed not only law enforcers havi ng t h e right to use the new Concealed Weapons De tection Technology , but law enforcers making certai n the criminal community is made well aware that such CWDT exists and is being utilized aggressively by law enforcement officials. The instrument us ed in the study is a survey questionnaire . The study sampled the residents of Madison , Wi sconsin and Washingt on , D. C. The interviewer of the st udy made telephone cal l s while in each target city . The interviewer intentionally asked the residents 5 o volun eer willingly to participa e in the study inasmuch as he s urvey instrume nt is somewhat lengthy . The responses to h s urvey ar s tistically a nalyzed , evalua ed , and generalized by inference t o t he general public . The indings are statistically significant at the 0 . 01 level , and support the primary hypothesis of his study . The finds from the study also support various findings rom ot her e m irical studies as recounted in the Literature Review section of the study . That primary hypo hesis of the study is that ac ual fear of c rime and violence , and or the perceived prevalen ce of crime and violence causes people to seek sometimes extraordinary self -help solu ions . ENDNOTES 1 These three concealed weapons detection te c hnologies , specifically he Passive Millimeter Wave Imaging technology , are the " technology " referred o in the survey instrument , and throughout the study . 2 Passive Millimeter Wave Imaging : This project is under development by Millitech Corporation . This new technology offers the opportunity for rapid and remote detection at a distance of up to 12 feet withou a direct physical search . This techn o l ogy would detect metallic and nonmetalli c weapons , plastic explosives , drugs , and other contraband concealed under multipl e layers of clothing . 3 Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Radia tion : The Raytheon Company is developing this project . This concealed 6 we apo ns t echnology involves illuminating an individua l wi th a l ow-in e nsity electromagnetic or "Heaviside " pulse a nd t hen me asuring the time decay of the re-radiated e nergy fr om the metal objects carried by the person . The int e nsity and the time decay of the secondary radiation c an be characterized and the " signatures " identified as a gun o r non-threatening metal object . Magne ic Gradient Measurements : This concealed weap o ns de e c tion initiative is being explored by Idaho Nati o nal Engineering Laboratory utilizing a proven , e xisting technology used in mineral explorat i on , e nvironmental c haracterization , military navigation , and submarine detection . This is a new application of an e xisting technology--magnetometer sensors . This t echnology is attempting to construct a more reliable sca nner than can be used as a stand-alone unit , much like an airpo rt scanner system , incorporated directly into building doorways or hallways . 5 Low-Level Scattered X-Rays and Computer Image Processing : This technology is under development by Nicolet Imaging Systems of San Diego , California . These technology uses extremely low doses of scattered x-rays , in conjunction with advanced computer image-processing techniques , to detect weapons , exp l os ives , illegal chemicals , and other contraband concealed under a person ' s clothing . 6 Millimeter-Wave and Long-Wave Infrared Receivers : This technology i s a passive approach , which is still being developed by the Lockheed-Martin Corporation . Thi s technology would use a millimete r-wave receiver and a long-wave infrared receiver , either individually or together to measure the difference in temperature between a concealed weapon and an individuals body . Wh e n the two types of receivers are used in tandem and linked with a computer imaging system , it is expected that the probability of detecting a concealed weapon will increase substantially . 7 Radar and Ultrasound : This development is considered an active approach that combines radar and ultrasound , which is being developed by JAYCOR . The system operator would have to be trained to interpret ultrasound images . It is expected that the radar component will be suitable 7 f o r fixed-site operation , and that the ultrasound compo nen will b suitable for either fixed-s i te or hand - he ld us e . 8 Lo w-Frequency Magnetic-Imaging System : The Systems and Processes Engineering Corporation is developing an ac tive-approach technology using a low- frequency magneti c imaging system suitable for fixed-site operation . 9 On April 20 , 1999 , two high schoo l students went on a r a mpage and killed 12 fellow students , a teacher and themselve s at Columbin e High in what has been reported as th e deadli e st schoo l shooting in United States history . Co nc ealed weapons solely were us ed in the rampage . 10 Since 1987 , there has been an increase in the number o f states permitti ng its cit i zen s to carry con cealed weapons . Most states s hall issue permi ts within a certain number of days , if the cit izen is not disqualified from applying for various reasons . These reasons typically include convictions for a felony or violent misde meanor , legally defined me ntal problems , known drug use , and ot her well-defined objective reasons . Other states issue permits with discretion , usually requiring the applicant to demonstrate a need . Many of the states issue non- resident permits or re cognize permit s from ot her states . Vermont is the only state that is unregulated . No permit of any kind is required of Vermont res idents , or of even non-residents . States a nd the District prohibiting citizens from carrying concea l ed weapons include the District of Columbia , Illinois , Kansas , Missouri , Nebraska , Ne w Mexico , Ohio , and Wisconsin . 11 On February 6 , 1999 , in Ne w York Ci ty , t h e media reported that four city police off i cers had shot at least 41 bullets at a suspect . Nineteen of those bullets hit the suspect in various parts of the body and killed him . The poli ce reported that they shot the victim because he was behaving in a suspicious manner , and they thought he was carrying a concealed weapon . He was not . 12 Th e Bureau of Justice Statistics , Office of Justice Programs of the U. S . Department of Justice report with a 95 % confid e nce i nterval , during the period of June 1 , 8 1992 , to May 31 , 1998 , an estimate between 33 , 800 to 81 , 000 of 99 , 000 related physical assaults . 1 3 Since September 11 , 2001 , the greatest concern is the escalated danger concea led weapons present in our airport s and on our airplanes . 14 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that the right of the people to b e secure in their persons , houses , papers , and effects , against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated . Fourth Amendment rights are discussed throughout the study . 9 CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW A. Fourth Amendment Issues Introduction As the media etches into our consci ous daily , crime in his counlry has become a national epidemic though in reality , crime rates have been declining over the years 1 , and leveling off . Modern day exigencies of criminal activity involving concealed weapons , specifically guns , such as student-on-student killings , and police officer shootings of unarmed persons has dictated to some communities that drastic self-help reaction might be appropriate 2 ? This study suggests one self-help reaction-- the i mpleme ntati on of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the " CWDT " ) . The study is interested in whether or not the sample population is of the belief that the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology introduced in this study could curb crime , specifically crime committed with illega lly concealed guns 3 and ot her weapons . The study also questions whether the sampl e population would be willing to forfeit a Constitutional right to permit the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . The study results 10 support police officer use of the new Concealed Weapons De ec ion Technology . The study results further support passing a law through initiatives and referendums 4 if necessary to permit police officer use of the new Concealed Weapons De ection Technology . The study identifies foreseeable limitations of the use of the new CWDT . Using the CWDT may cause innocent people to be searched unwittingly by police officers , although i would be unbeknownst to the individual . Moreover , there may be mistakes of stopping an individual for carrying a concea led weapon who may be licensed to do so . In both instances , one might argue that surely citizens would secure some comfort in the knowledge that c arrying concealed weapons no longer goes undetected . Such limitation cou ld be considered benign or harmless error . A major obstacle confronting the issue of new CWDT use may be the public considering the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology a violation of one ' s Fourth Amendment and privacy rights . The Constitutional and legal personal , privacy concerns surely to arise from citizen interest groups especia lly , would have to be addressed thoroughly before a determination is made to legalize the use of this innovative CWDT . 11 These concerns of legal , Constitutional, personal privacy issues and the Constitutionality of t he new CWDT use are important components of t he study . The study instrument clearly points out to the participants the nonintrusive capabi lities of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . One are of the study analyzes the opin i o ns and attitudes of the parti c ipant s to determine who should have the respon sibility for control ling the use of such new CWDT , if it became l egalized . Th e four choices present ed to the participants were ' 1 . ) Individuals by vote initiated by referendum , per State ' 2 . ) The Federal Governme nt , 3 . ) Individual States , and 4 . ) Courts decide on a Case-By-Case Basis . The most favorable responses were individuals by vote , and the Federa l Government . The Respondents in the study opined approx imate ly 33 percent of the time that individual votes initiated by referendum , per State , should have control , and approxima t ely 30 percent believe that the Federa l Government should have control . Nin e teen percent stated that the State Government s hould have contro l, 14 percent indicate that the Courts shou l d have control , on a Case-By- 5 Case Basis , and 4 percent had no preference . The survey instrument apprised the sample population of the capabilities and proactive potential of the new 12 CWDT . The deterrent , the nonconfrontation al , and the ned discrete search aspects of a new CW DT search were explai ll . Th e importance of the ne w CWDT ' s potential as a as we e growing animosity between local an d catalyst in healing th national communities and law enforce ment officials also is discussed i n the study . The unique at ributes of the n e w Co ncealed Weapons human Detection Technology could persuade well-intenti oned rights activist groups and the Court not to rush to label Weapons Detection Technology " just t he new Concealed another oppressor of minority races . " Perhaps the ll convince deterrent and healing potentials of new CWDT wi and well-meaning activist groups no t to even attempt Courts ology to strike the new Concealed Weapons Detection Techn down as unconstitutional . urts and well-meaning activist group s However , the Co could be defensible , formidable advo cates against the new s Detection CWDT . Ca ndidly , a new Concealed We apon Technology search by its design and function could strongly is an intrusive , and unreasonabl e se arch and be argued son in violation of the individual ' s seizure of one ' s per rights under the Fourth Ame ndme nt of the Unit ed States Constitution 6 ? 13 Th e study attemp s to a ddress t hi s potential Fo urth Ame ndme nt infri n geme nt from bot h a legal pre cedence , and Co n st i t uti o nal sta ndpo int . Th e Fo u rt h Ame n d me n t infri ng e men t c o ncern , however , c a n n o t be address e d without firs d e t e rmining what preced e n ce d oe s a nd d oes not consti tu e a n unreasonab l e Fo u rth Ame n d ment search and seizure . Th e study an a lyzes t h e in te n t o f t h e Fo un d e rs o f th e Constitution of t h e Unit e d St ates , Supreme Co u rt decis i o ns , a nd State p recede nt ca se law to d e fin e th e t erm " unreasonable search ." The first arg ume n t a g a ins t th e l e g a lit y o f a CWDT se a r c h is that t h e Fo u rt h Amendme nt requi res t h at a wa rrant be issued befo r e condu c ting a s ea r c h and s e i z ure . A CWDT searc h , h o wever , necessarily would n o t r e quire a war r ant . Th e Fou r t h Ame ndme nt o f th e Uni ted St ates Co n s ti t uti on states : Th e right of the peopl e to be secure in their p ersons , h o us e s , papers and effects against unreasonable searc hes and seizures shall n o t b e v i o lat e d , and n o warrants s hall issue but on pro babl e c aus e support e d by oath o r a ffi rmat ion a n d p arti c ula r ly describing the place t o b e s e arc h e d and the person or things to be sei z ed . Th e Uni ted Stat e s Co nstitution warns the Federal g o vernme n t t hat ill e gally obtained e vidence in vio l ation of the searc h and se i z ure pro vision , c annot be us e d at the tri a l o f th e d efendan t . The Courts have held this rule applicable to 14 the Sates as well 7 ? Consequently , any evidence seized during a CWDT search would be thrown out as inadmissible in a Co urt o Law . Generally speaking , searching an individual without j ustifiabl e probable cause 8 , or without a good faith 9 sh o wing under the exclusionary rule constitutes an unlawful , unreasonable search . Any illegal weapons or contraband seized during this unlawful search and us ed agains the individual in a Court of Law is violating the individual ' s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from such unreasonable search and seizure . Some CWDT searches might be allowable and the ev idence seized not exc luded from trial under the " good faith exclusionary rule ." This o utcome might on ly be true , however , if the police officer convinces the Judge that out of good faith he believed the suspect was carrying an illegally con cealed weapon , and his judgment was based upon his training and experience as a police officer . However , there would be no concern whether the new CWDT search were an unlawful search if a warrant were not required at t h e time of the search . Such warrantless searches might include a " hot pursuit " incident , or a police officer actually see ing the suspect commit a crime . These and other unwarranted searches are discussed later in 15 ?his sec ion . Moreover , Lh is type of search would not be consi dere n i n frin g e me n t of one ' s Fo u rt h Ame ndme n t if Federal and o r local la w p p roves h e u s of he n e w CWDT . The study surve y re su lts i ndi cate t hat t h e majority o the sample population i s wi l ling to all o w t h e Fe dera l government and or t h e loca l governme nt t o pas s l a ws, wh ich would legalize t he u se of t h e ne w concea l e d weap o n s , detection tec hn ology . The sampl e p opulati o n furth e r indicates that t he maj ority is willing v o luntarily to forfeit a Constit u t ion a l right if n e cessary t o permit th e use of the ne w Concea l ed Wea po ns Detecti on Techn ology . Theses atistics are th o r o ughly dis c ussed in th e Re sult s sect i o n of t h e st udy . Th e s udy qu e stione d , however , whether the voluntary forfeitu r e of o n e ' s Constitutio nal right is l e g a lly o r Co n s ti t ut io na lly permissibl e . In order f o r the study t o i n te lligen t ly and credibly address the questions and con ce rns of Constituti onality and legality of voluntary fo r fe i t ure , i t was n e cessary to critically scrutinize the history a nd d e fining purpos e of the Fourth Amendment to the Uni ted Sta te s Constituti on , the " Exclusionary Rul e Reform 9 95 10Ac t o f 1 ," and the exclusive powers of the Federal and State l e vel government . 16 The History of the Constitution Articles of Confederation , which were in Under the fore since 1781 , and before the ratifi cation of the United States Cons itution , he States were p rovided great nmental latitude and power . They poss essed all the gover righ sand powers which appertain to s overeign and 11 f - independent nations For all purpose s of sel. government , the States had "no want of power, or the means liberty , reputation , and property , all o f using it . " Life , 12 were copiously established in the State s ' Governments _ thin the If any internal improvement were neces sary wi and uncontrolled jurisdiction , such as the State ' s entire implementation of the new Concealed We apons Detection could cause it Technology , the sovereign power of the State to be undertaken and effected . The new law enforcing Concealed Weapons Detection Technology during that era internal could have been considered a " necessary improvement 13 ." Only the States had the power to honor the people ' s take part in social issues , such as the war on desire to crime , and only states could grant them permission to ates ' voluntarily forfeit a personal right . Thro ugh the St o want of power " rights , States could m ake a provision in " n the law permitting police officers the use of the new 17 led Wea p o n s Detecti o n Te c hn o l o gy . Th e g e neral Concea g o ve rnment cou ld not inte r fe r e . Under the Artic l es of Confe d era ti o n , the g e neral government , presen t ly i dentified a s th e Fe d e ral go vernment f did not have th e p ower to grant the people the right t o al governme nt had forfeit t h e ir p e rs onal rights . Th e gener only trivial powers assigned to it , which c aused it great 14 The general government specifically consternation . lac ked p o wer to regulat e commerce , to tax , to set commerc ial p o li c y , to support a war effo rt , or e ven power betwe en States . Ultimately , James to set tl e q u a r rels Madis o n , o ne o f the writers of the new Constitution , l government which proteste d and demanded a stronger g enera e o rder and stability to the 13 sov ereign and wo u l d pro vid 15 ind e pendent states , and would then have the power to e n a ble the use of to new CWDT . Co nsequently , the politicians of th e Cont inental n to be Congress found the Articles of Con federatio in s uffi c ient , and they demanded a n ew-form of government . s of the Continenta l Congress conve ned A s e ries of meeting solely for the purpose of debating the lack of power t h e general government held under the A rticles of ion1 6 It was during those meet ings that the Confederat . d majority decided to oust the Articl es of Confe derati on an 18 te a new governme n t , t h e Fe d eral g o v e r nme n t . c r e a This new , a governme n t was to b e a compl e t e and c ompulsive o p e rati o n vernme n t of "supre me p o we r , " with f e d era l p o wer national go ll states 17over a ? , o ut o f the birth o f the new Fede ral Ult imate ly overnment came t h e adoption o f the Un ited States g nstitution, a nd t h e t e n Ame ndme n t s , w h ich cons t i t ut e t h e Co Bill of Rig h ts . Th e Bill o f Right s w as writt e n a s a direct b e f o r e coming t o res ult of exp eriences o f the c o lonials , America n to crea t e a new and better g overnment. They wanted be free from unreasonable searches and s p ec i fica lly t o se i zures . In fact , one of the colonial ' s f irst acts under the " writs of th e new and better government was to rescind 8 ass ista nce 1 ." Under this new and better governm ent , the to be considered a fundamental right . Fo u r th Ame ndme nt was Thereafter , the Constitution became th e Supreme Law o f mit e d power t he Land , which , inter alia , conferred , but li ccording to the 10th Amendment to the United t o the States a , , 1 9 St ates Constitution . United States Congress was expressly a uthorized by The b o th the sovereign and the voice of th e people to propose h o u ses " shall t h ink amendments whenever two-t h irds of bot h fit 2 0 Congress was given the power to a mend the _,, Constitution at the demand of the peo ple , and , or the 19 States . The Founders recognized that the Constitut i on would enable the people to maintain full power of rights , ? hat his power flo ws immediately from hem , the people , ha this power is delegated to their officers for the public good , and , finally , that the people ' s rulers are t he servants of the people , a me nable to their will , and creat ed for the people ' s use 21 . Now , the people could voluntarily forfeit their Const itutional Fourth Ame ndme nt right to enforce the use of the new CWDT . The Founders intended the people to have control over their inalienable rights as e numerated in the Bill of Rights . Therefore , the Constit ution provided power to th e people voluntari ly to forfeit their rights to protection under the Fourth Amendment of the Constituti o n , if they deemed it necessary , for the purpose only of permitting th e use of the new CWDT . It would take an act of Congress , pursuant to t he Bill of Rights , to actually make and pass a law enabling the people to elect to forfe it their Constit utional right to freedom from unreasonabl e search and seizure . The Founders of the Constitut ion provided a safety net fo r any laws they passed that may later be foun d not to conform to the Const i t ution . In that regard , the Founders wrot e , " If t he Congress made l a ws inconsistent 22 with t he Constitution , the judges would not uphold them _ 11 2 0 founders stated , in their discussion of the The e ' s right under the new government Const itution , that : peopl The people are known with certainty to ha ve originated it [government] themselves . T hose in power are their servants and agents , and the people , without their consent , may new-m odel their government whenever they think prop er , not merely because it is oppressively exercis ed but because they think another form will be m or~ 23 conducive to t heir welfare . [Emphas is added . ] The Legislature is to be guided by the C onstitution . Thus , it appears that the new CWDT would be per missible. Und e r the hypotheti ca l scenario presented in this f one ' s st udy , it is stated that the voluntary fo rfeiture o onstitutional fourth Amendment rights wou ld be in effect C 24 for this purpose only . All other protec tion guaranteed to the people under the fourth Amendment of the Constitution wo uld remain intact . Howev er , passing a bill Detection to permit the use of the new Concealed W eapons logy possibly would not compr omis e t h e ri ghts of the Techno people , and could fall within the except i ons of the 2s d Exclusionary Rule Reform Act law passe by the Congress is new law permits police officers greate r in 1995 . Th latitude in conducting searches and seizu res . he question posed in the study , " What for m of Hence , t government would have the power of autho rity to authorize voluntary forfeiture of one ' s Constitutio nal right? " could ess be answered , Congress , and adopted by the States . Congr 2 1 is gra n ted t he p ower t o make and e nforce su c h a law. Also , power cou ld be a u t ho riz e d by individual States , but woul d probably have to s t a nd a c hall e ng e in the Supr e me Co ur t for lackin g Co nst i t u t i onality. The Supreme Court ha s the a utho r i ty to override any State law that is de termined unconstitutiona l. If Congress passed such a law l e gal iz ing this ne w techn o l ogy , but a State already had a law in n place , wh ich ma d e th e new Concealed Weapons De tec tio Tec hn o l ogy i ll e gal , the State law would be pree mpted by the Constitutio n . The Constitution made provisions for a check a nd balance between Congress , the States , and the Supreme Co ur t . Fo r all intent and purposes , the Fou nders nte rpreted th e Constitution ' s Second Clause to provide for i t h is c he c k a nd balance . They wrote that the in tent of the Second Clause is that the Executive , Legislativ e , and ? ? 26 Jud i cial powers should be separa t e an d d istinct . It is l to the preservation of liberty to make such e sse ntia . 2 7 distinction and separation o f powers . Alternatively , the intent of the Constitution is to e mpower the people with the freedom to forfeit their of the inalienable rights , if they so choose . The Fo unders Constitution of the United States wrote t hat , " the . fundamental principles of every safe and free g overnment 22 are . inalienable rights ought not to be given up , if 28 ,, not necessary (Emphasis added) . Ho wever , the of o ne ' s Fourth Amendment right following the forfeiture hypot hetica l scenario under the study , could fall within the scope of the Founders ' intent that inalien able rights y be given up , if necessary. Certainly it co uld be ma argued that criminal violence in this country , ~ . g . , drive- by shootings , high-school killings , police mi staken ly killing unarmed suspects , and hij acki ng airpla nes all qualify as " necessary " reasons to voluntarily forfeit one ' s inalienable right . The History And Purpose Of State and Federal Powers As described above , the States existed before the deral government . Each State possessed all th e rights Fe and powers which appertained to sovereign and independent nations . The States were self-governed w ith full power , a nd means and right to use that p ower . The Sta tes ' governments provided protection for " life , lib erty , reputation , and property ," and had entire and uncontrolled jurisdiction , with power to undertake and effe ct any improvements internal to the States . There w ere issues of parately , higher importance that the States ' government s , se were not equal or adequate to address . Th ese were specified in a letter from George Washington to the 23 Conventi o n , which accompanied the Constitu tion. As presented to the old Congress , it read : The friends of our country having long see n and desired , that the power of making war , peace , and treaties , and that of levyi ng mo ney an d regulating commerce , and the corresponding Executive and Judicial authorities , should be fully and effectual vested in the general e Un?i on . 29 government oft h The States felt it necessary to yield up t hese wers that it possessed as a sovereign and e numerated po independent nation . The States acquiesced the neces sity to create a Federal government whose purpose was solely to ecide these issues . No ot h er powers were conferre d on the d Federal government other than these e numer ated powers . If ral doubt ever arose as to the powers conferre d to the Fede government , and powers retained by the Sta te Governments , the 10th Article of the Amendment to the C onstitution settled the question . consequently , the Federal government is on e of limited delegated powers , and can only act on subj ects expressly under its control by the Constitution , an d upon such placed other matters as may be necessarily and pr operly within the the en umerated sphere of its action ; to e nable it to carr y and specified powers into execution and wi thou t which the . ? 3 0 powers granted would be inoperative . 24 The History And Purpose Of The Fourth Amendment The Bill of Rights was writt e n as a d irect result of e xperiences had by t he colonials before coming to Ameri ca n to create a new and better government . They wante d s pecifically to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures . As stated previously , one of the colonials ' first act under the new and better government wa s t o 31 rescind the "writ s of assistance n to rid the peop le of unreasonable searches and seizures . Subsequently , the Fourth Amendment became a fundamental right of the people . Albeit , making it law for the people voluntarily t o forfeit one of their precious inalienable rights , i -~ -, Fourth Amendment rights , would have c hill ed the Fo unders of the Constitut ion . The Founders intended the peop le to be free from law enforcement officials who conducted searches of individuals without justifiable probable cause , and used the evidence seized against the individual in a Co urt of Law . Voluntary forfeiture is in direct violation of the nal colonials ' Fourth Amendment intent . The Constitutio basis for the excl usion of any evidence obtained a s a result of such an unlawful arrest or search and se izure was ptember founded on the Fourth Amendment . However , after S e 11 , 2001 , it would appear that even the Founders w ould approve safety precautions s uc h as the n e w CWDT . 25 The Fifth Amendment, which forbids citizen s from incrimina ing themselves in a crime , also could be ind voluntary forfeiture a violation of th e interpreted to f Constitution. Pos sibly , the Supreme Court wo uld cons ider a elf - new Concea led Weapons Detection Te c hnology search s , and would strike down the new Concealed incriminating Weapons De ection Technology right to sear ch law as unconstitutional for that reason . The next question then is whether case law precedence supports the ne w CWDT , or whether it also could find it an unreasonable search and seizure . Historica l Background and Legal Implicatio ns of Searches and Seizures As a mea n of guaranteeing against the inju stice of the British writ s of assistance , the Fourth Am endment was es of search and created to elevate the common-law principl seizure . The Founders guaranteed that wr its of assistance would be beyond the reach of t he legislatu re . Under the United States Constitution , the power to s earch was divided eral between the Executive and Judicial branche s of the Fed t . The legal implications of the Am erican governmen criminal justice system i s t hat police off icers must apply ey can for search warrants from J ud i c i a l officers before th lawfully invade the homes and businesses o f citizens . Judicial officers must remain within their sphere , and 26 re spec t th e searchi ng prerogatives of the Executive branch . 3 2 Be ing mindful of the Fo unders' i ntent , then it fo und t hat Congress has abused its po wer and may be sabot a ged t he Fo urth Amendment when i t introduced and The pas s e d th e Exclusionary Rule Reform Ac t of 1995 . form Act of 1995 is discussed in detai l Excl u s i o na ry Rule Re later in t he study . um33 the Supreme Court recognized that under In Bra , the Unit e d States Constitu tion , even a unanimous vote in Congress could not alter the Bill of R ights or Constitutional procedures . Jus tice Antonin Scalia It is the expressed this sentiment in 1991 wh e n he wrote , " ll of Rights to preserve [the judgment of fun c ti o n of the Bi th e Founders] not only against the c ha nging views of ainst the Pre sidents and Members of Congress , bu t also a g of Justi. ces 34 f changing views - ,, Th e power o the Supreme Court over Congress is thoroughly discu ssed in Marbury v . of the will of Madison 3 5 _ Marbury also defines the po wer the people . The Marbury Court opined t hat : The question , whether an act , repugn ant to the constit ution , can become the law of th e land , is a question deeply interesting to t he United States ; but , happily , not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest . It s eems only necessary to recognize certain p rinciples , supposed to have been long and well es tablished , to decide it . 2 7 That the people have an original ri ght to such establish , for their future governm ent , principles as , in their opinion , sh all most co nduce to their own happiness , is the basis o n d . which the whole American fabric has been erecte The exercise of this original righ t is a very great exertion . Nor ca n it n or oug ht it to be frequently repeated . The principles , therefore ' so established are deemed fundamen tal. In addition , as the authority , from w hich they pro ceed , is supreme , and can seldom act , they are d e signed to be permanent , 5 U. S . 13 7 (1803) . Ultimately it appears that the land mark case law o f Marbury , inter alia could be u se d as persuasive argument apons Detection in support of use of the new Conce aled We Technology . Case law explicit ly defines the me aning of a search and seizure . One definition is that a v isual observation f that infringes upon a person ' s reas onable expectation o onal privacy constitutes a " search " in t he Constituti ut sense 36 A " search" consists of looki ng for or see king o ? view 37rom . "search " that which is otherwise concealed f A n which to which the exc lusionary rule ma y apply is one i t of there is a quest for , a looking for , or a seeking ou cement that which offends against the law by law enfor s 38 ir agent . The Court determ ined in personnel or the Vargas was more than a middleman , as h e argued Vargas that to the Court . The Court held that the excl usionary rule f did not apply because Vargas exerci sed a great deal o ctivities management responsibility over the property and a 28 of the criminal conspiracy. Thus, orchestrating or coordi na ing the activities of others is even enough to e departure from the Fourth Amendment protect ion justify th of the exclusionary rule . 39 Further , in the British case Entick , Entick sued the Crown ' s agents for trespassing when they rans acked his home for four hours after the Earl of Halifax , the Secretary of States , issued an executive warrant to seize E ntick , as well as his boo ks and papers . A jury awarded Entick 300 e Court of pounds in damages . The Court took appeal to th Common Pleas , where the British officials arg ued that their warrant immunized them from trespass lawsuit s . The search presiding Judge , Lord Camden , found the warra nt to have no eded legal validity , whatsoever . However , Lord Ca mden conc that although the warrant was null and void , it could be an act of Parliament , inasmuch as Parliament authorized by could override the common law whenever it wis hed . The American colonists who were fighting against the writs of nce 40 viewed the concession with trepidation. It assista was viewed as a dangerous loophole that could be exploited by Parliament . ely Thereafter , the American colonials became acu t aware of and dissatisfied with the shortcomin gs of the are British Constitution in this respect . They became aw 29 o n-law principles easily c ould be swep t aside . l hat comm Ul tima t el y , th e y sat down and drew up plans for a new g o ve rnme nt . These colonials became the Framers o f the ecure their Amer i c an Co nstitution . Their intent became to s ies . To reiterate , the intent wa s to hard-wo n libert compo s e d the American Constituti on to enumerate and divide f the g o vernmental power among three separate branches o ent . Conseque ntl y , it wa s with fo rethought Fe d e ral governm th a t th e y limited the powers of the Le gislative body . Cas e law has settled the proposition th at the Fourth uires agents of the Government to obtai n prior Amendme nt req 41 judicial approval of all searches and s eizures ? This well-del ineat ed thesis is subject only to a few narrow and 42 nded upon urgent necessity ? Specifi cally exceptions grou Terry v . Ohio 43 wh ich states that the s cope of a search must be strict ly tied to and justi fied by the 44 circumstances , whi ch rendered it s initi ation permissible . meaning of Terry , however , requires a seizure with in the that when a n officer , by the Fourth Amendment . Terry held means of physical force or s h ow of a uth ority has in some a seizure occurs . way restrained the liberty of a citizen , 45 However , in California v . Hodari , the Co urt explained that the word " seizu re " readily bears t he meaning of a laying on of hands or application of ph ysical force to 30 estrain movement , even when it is ultimate ly unsuccessful . There can be no seizure , or arrest unless the subject yields 4 6 The use of the new Concealed Weapons Dete. ction Technology could not be considered an act of seizure within the Hodari standards . An individual would not have to be seized to be searched by the new CWDT . 47 However , Harris v. United States , and United States v . Rabinowitz 48 were founded on a subjective view regarding t h e acceptability of certain sorts of police conduct , and not o n considerations relevant to Fourth Amendment 50 4 9 The findings in Ch imi en l t ve .r e Cst as lifornia , which ? applied principles established by a long line of cases to determine the permissible scope of a warrantles s search s o ught to be justified as the necessary incident of a lawful arrest ove rruled Harris and Rabinowitz . In an attempt to apply the principles of Harris and Rabinowitz to the circumstances involved in Chimel , the Court overruled Harris and Rabinowitz . 51 Nevertheless , regardless of the rulings of Braum a n d Justice Scalia ' s opinion therein , on February 8 , 1995 , the 5 2 Hous e of Representatives passed H. R. 666 whic h wo uld provide a "good faith " exception to the Fourth Amendment excl usionary rule for a ll manner of warrantless searches . This new rule would permit Federal prosecutors to u se 31 evidence that law enforcement agents seized illegally. This law , however , i~ o nly available if the law enforcement office r stands be orE a j udge and swears that he " objectively " hought what he was doing was legal at the ime that he was doing i , and the judge is persuaded by his oa h. Perhaps , j ustifi c ation for the new Concealed We a p o ns Dete c tion Te chnology could be couched within the limits of the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 . When a search , impermissible under the Fourth Amendment results in the seizure of evidence , exclusion of the fruits of that unconstitutional invasion is required not merely in hope of deterring unconstitutional searches in the future , but in order to vindicate the right of priva c y guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment 53 . Exclusion of evidence in order to vindicate the right of privacy , however , does not improve the reliability of the fact- finding process at trial 54 ? Accordingly , this factor does not require that the 3tandards of Chime l , acceptability of certain sorts of police conduct and not on considerations relevant to Fourth amendment interests , be retroactively applied 55 ? 32 Th e Go vernment Involvement Aspect of Forfeiting Fourth Ame ndme nt Rights Sta es ' Involvement Police Power and the Fo urteenth Amendment Many debates have been made regardi ng the significance o f t h e Fo urteenth Amendment and State po Tw he er . Fo u rteenth Amendment pertains t Go o vt eh re n mS et na tt es ' , a nd pro t ec ts person Ps of lr io cm e PS ot wat ee r , a tc ht eio n s . p o we r to care for the general welfare of the people , was conferred on the States by the Tenth Amendme nt of the United State Constitution . The individual States delegated po wer to their local governments to establi sh a special department of police . The purpose of th i s special department of poli ce is to adopt such l aws and regulations which tend to prevent the commission of fraud and crime , and place restraints on the persona l freedom and property rights of persons for the protection of the public safety , health , and morals or the promotion of the public convenience and general prosperity . However , Police Power is subject to t he limitations of the Federal and State Moreover , the Consti tutional Amendments Constituti o ns . pertaining to due process a lso limit State Police Power . It could be argued that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to protect the public a nd deem the Concealed However , Weapons Detection Technology unconstitutional . 33 al erna iv ly , nulcl e c11 c ued that police power through h fo r , ,?n h /\m, ndrnt'll ('n,il' I cs police officers the use of cone led w0.c1pons dL?l eel i 011 I nr th protecti o n of the ubl1c sf y , h 1 h , an i rnn t 1ls and or the promoti on of he pu l i con v "n i ,~nee and lt'l 1t ira l prosperity . I?' de r al In vol vcrnc>n - Enumerated Powers The pow I oJ Lh e [,'our l1 /\rne ndment to search , under t he Uni? d St l s Const iLuLion , is divided between the 56 Exe cu i ve nc! Ju i ia l br nche~ of government ? The Federal overnm n h limiLcd and e numerat ed powers , excluding Polic Power of Lh Je nera l publi c whi c h , of course , belongs o l h inc j vi dual States . Unless the new te chnology c n Jished to fa ll within Congress ' Commer e Powe1 , or? som o he 1 !?ede ral Power , it will be circumscribe unConsLi ulionaJ . Under the Comme rce Power , Ar icle 1 , Section 8 of th United States Constitution , Congress is cone e power to " regulate Commerce with foreign Nati o ns , 11 amon th severa l States , and with the Indian Tribes . " Modern tr tm nl of some articular subject matt e r in areas such as civil r i hts , crj minal law , and r e gulation of Governmen acliv~LL s of Stal s has been found to be within th e boundaries o f h Comm Powe r given to Congress 57 . Consequently , if h newt c hn ology meets the same required :n ?..:r lcJ dtl i ~;t n l,11 s as a p p lied in this modern Lreatment O J <:ommt='l er' Powe. 1. su f-- remac y , th e n the new technol o gy c o uld e m Cons it ut io11a l under c ivil rights laws , criminal laws , an ev n r gul Lio n o f States ' Government a c tivities . P roce u ra 1 Due Process In ividuals are c ua r a nt e ed fair procedures . Even at a minimum , p1 oc du 1 1 dLe pro cess requires that part i es whose righ s ar Lo b cl iec. t e d b e entitled to be heard . Thus , hey mus Cons e qu e ntly , initiating the u s e of the n e w CWDT , ii hi s new technology is found to be uncons itu ion 1 , musl be preceded by legalization of the new technolo y . In hat regard , the people could voice ? h ir favor or he n w Concealed Weapons Detection Technology , which co uld be heard through State initiatives a nd re eren urns . Subs?a iv Due Process . An i ndivi u l ' s roperty is protected from unfair governmental in ri 1 ne e or taki ng . Individual rights may b e considered pro erly; thus , substantive due process under th e Fi t h a nd Four t nth Amendments req uires legislation to b e fair a nd r e so n l e in content as wel l as application . Th e es s e n ce of s ubs n : ive due process is protection from arbitrary a n unr ason able action 5 9 , and legalizing the new 35 tec hn o l ogy co uld be argued a taking of individual rights, and u nconst ituti onal , arbitrary and unreasonable action . The Hi s o ry And Purpose Of The Exclusionary Rule Refo rm Ac t Of 1995 Before a warrantless search and seizure can be just ifie d and adjudicated , the po li ce officer conducting t he sea r c h and seizure must have reasonable belief that t here is g ood reason to conduct s uch search and seizure , 60 or , in o ther wo rds , probable caus e However , the . Exclusi onary Rule 61 prohibits the use of evidence that was ob t ained in violation of the Fourth Amendment in criminal prosecutions . The legal concern of using the new Concealed weapons Detection Technology is whether a Court would find this technological method of searching a private citizen an " excep At io "n fe" w to li mth ie te dF ourth Amendme nt . circumst ances " to the search warrant requirement are considered " exceptions " to the Four th Amendment of the One exception to the United States Cons titution . Exclusionary Rule is the " good faith" exception . 62 In 1984 , in United States v . Leon th' e United States Supreme Court established a limited " exception " to the generally-applicable exclusionary rule , for situations in which law enforcement agents seized evidence pursuant to a warrant that was actually invalid but which they 36 rea s o nably believed to be valid (the "good faith excepti o Tn h" i) s . excl u sionary rule has been held to be 63 appli c able to the states in~ v . Ohio The most _ s e vere curtailment of the rule came in 1984 wi th the adop t i o n o f a " good faith " exception . _ 64 the co, urt created an excepI n ti oL ne o fn or evidence obtained as a result of officers ' objective , good-faith reliance on a warrant , that was later found to be d e f e ctive , but had been issued by a detached and neutral 65 Justice White ' s opinion for the m Ca og ui rs ttrat ie n . Leon could find little benefit in applying the exclusionary rule wh ere there has been good- faith reliance on an invalid warrant . Thus , there was nothing to offset 66 the " substantial socia l cost s exacted by the rule ." " The exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrat es ," and in any event the Court considered it unlikely that the rule could have much deterrent effec ot n 67 the actions of truly neutral magistrates ? Moreover , the court thought that the rule should not be applied " to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity ," and that "penalizing the officer cannot l ogically for t he magistrate ' s error contribute to the deterrence of Fourt h Amendment 37 violations 68 ." The Leon Court also suggested some circums ances in which Co urts would be unable to find that of icers ' reliance o n a warrant was objectively reasonable : if the officers have been "di shonest or reckless in preparing their affidavit ," if it should have been obvious t hat the magistrate had " wholly abandoned " his neutral role , or if the warrant were obviously deficient on its face (e . g ., lacking in particularity) The Co urt applied t h e Le o n standard in Massachusetts v . Sheppard 69 , h o lding t hat an officer possess e d an objectively reasonable belief that h e h ad a valid warrant after he had pointed o ut to the magistrate that he had not us ed the standard form, and the magistrate had indicated that t h e necessary cha n ges had been incorporated into the issued warrant . 70 In 1987 , in Illinois v . Krull , the Courts appli ed its good faith exception to a case in which a law enforcement office r acted in obj ect ively reasonable reliance on an erroneous computer record drawn from neutral and detach ed Court records . In Krull , the Co urt f urther developed the concept articulated in Leon of objectively reasonable " good fa ith " relian ce by an officer on a n external legal authority t o conduct a search or seizure . Albeit , the '' valid warrant " in Krull , was actually a 38 d State regulatory statute of v ery limited facia l ly vali licabilit y , r e garding mo t o r ve h i c les , no less , whi c h was app in fact , lat e r rul e d unconstitu tional . 71 However , in 1995 , in Arizona v . Evans , the Supreme " exception to a case in which Cour t applied its " good faith a la w e nfo r c ement o fficer acted in objectively reasonable from neutral reli an ce o n an erroneous comput er record drawn s. The finding in Evans logica lly a nd deta c he d Court record could b e applied to the use of the new Concealed Weapons ue . De te c ti o n Technology , if object ivity were the i ss the Supreme Court has limited i ts In Le on and Krull , "good faith " exception to the e xclusionary rule to seizures have instances in which officers ' se arches and able becaus e of their reliance up on been objectively reason an apparently valid , external s ource of l ega l authority . In these cases , however , the lo gi c of permitting an ionary rule for invalid warrant s exception to the exclus which police officers believed to be valid does not extend without to situations where the officer s themselves , incorrect determination that a seeking a warrant , made an or seizure was legal . In Leon , officers are merely search tion , h owever , relying on a n e utral magistrate ' s determina a '' good faith" exception would insulate an in Evans , uired . erron eous police decision that no warrant was req 39 eviden ce b e aring o n their "good f ait h" b e l ief t hat The only t he search or seiz ure was legal wou ld be the law enforceme n t a ge nt ' s own after-the-fa ct testimony . o f th e Ultimate ly , under the ruling in Eva ns, the use l e d Weapons Detection Technology cou ld be ne w Co n cea justified as be ing used in "good fai th ," after the fact , if neces sary . The p o lice officer could explain his good faith belief in the CWDT as a v iable ob jectivity and meth od to dete r t e rro rism , crime , v iolence , and e ve n death . Howe ve r , the good faith , objectivity test may no The Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of l o ng e r be necessary . 1995 further insulates Evans and all ows unlawfully seized he mistakes e vidence to be considered in Court s o long as t officers in seizing it were made in good made by police faith . This new Exclusionary Rule R eform Act expands the hich e x c lusionary rule to include a broad er scenario in w ficers who gather evidence against a suspect p oli c e of without a search warrant , may s ubst itut e instead , his " objectively reasonable belief" that he was acting such a broad exception , wh y would an y other properly . With law , statute , or rule have to b e pas sed to p ermit police n o logy? use of the ne w Concealed Weapons De tection Tech ly , under the new Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of Certain a 1995 , any clever police officer woul d be able to conduct 40 intrusive search of any suspicious p erson , and if any non he illegal wea pon or contraband is disc overed, arrest t urely , such a search could be conduc ted with the suspect . S new CWDT. Under this new, broader e xclusionary rule t the police exception , what judge is going to de ny tha the appropriate " objectively reasona ble be l ief" officer had that he had acted properly , and excl ude the seizure from illegally gained the trial? Law e nforcement officers ' evidence will no longer be excluded from trials if confiscated reasonably . lly , if not already , the landmark ca ses of Potentia and Leon could someday be considere d bad law , as a ~ Act of 1995 . reverberation of the Exclusionary R ule Reform the Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 may have However , opened the door for the use of the n ew CWDT to enter . Authorizing Voluntary Forfeiture Another answer to the hypothetical q uestion , " What er of authority to form of government would have the po w enforce voluntary forfeiture? " could be found in the der Article V and Article III . Purs uant to Constitution , un Article V, the Congress shall propos e amendments to the nsti tution72 Article III gives the Supreme Court power Co . as or iginal jurisdiction " In all cas es affecting . and those in which a state shall be part y ." In all other 41 c ases , the Supreme Court shall have appellate juri sdiction , both as to law and as to fact , with such excep tions , and under such regulations as the Congress shall m ake . The Supreme Court has established early that t he Fourth Amendment was intended to protect again st arbitrary 73 ts as well as against unreasonable searches ? That arres 74 premise is well-established law . Case law pr ecedence does not permit the use of technology , which violat es the individual ' s Fourth Amendment rights , although those restrictions have lessened greatly over time . Probable cause is required before a police officer may take a ect into custody without a warrant , unless the y have susp probable ca use to believe that t he person to b e arrested has committed a felony or committed a misdemea nor in their presence 75 ? However , there are many instances when a suspe ct ' s conduct or manner will have aroused a police o fficer ' s erson suspicions , but probable cause for placing suc h a p under arrest will be lacking . A police office r may not arrest " upon mere suspicion alone ," but only u pon probable picion for cause76 ? Nevertheless , t here may be enough sus fr . k77 " H ver , t h e the officer to perform a " sto p a n d i s ? owe probable cause must exist before t he p o li cema n ' s stop , and what the policeman discovers after the stop wi ll not 42 tablish retroactively reasona ble cause 78 _ suffice to es springs into He nce , this may be where the " objectivity" r the guise of the "Exclusion ary Rule Reform Act ac t ion unde of 1995 7 9 ." lid searches and seizures wit hout Other va rants include detention short of arrest stop-and- war 81 ; vehicular frisk 80 ; searches incident to arrest 2 earches 8 , and vessel searche s 83 . mstance under s A circu ized a good - faith exception , a which the Court has recogn tion at that , to the Exclusio nary limited good faith excep Rule has been in the aforeme ntioned Leon case . ch warrant that had been issu ed was In Leon , a sear . Nevertheless ound to be unconstitutionally issued , later f nce seized under this warran t was admissible in the evide ception . Under the new Court under the good faith ex n xclusionary Rule Reform Act , the evidence would have bee E if there had not been a warra nt , and admitted in Court even nstitutionally issued or not . The whether it had been unco Excl usionary Rule Reform Act seeks to expand the "good ement faith" exception to situation s where law enforc nce without a warrant , yet s till have officials gather evide acting an objectively reasonable be lief that they are properly. 43 Inasmuch as case law precedence does not permit the use of technology that violates an i ndividual ' s Fourth hts it still may be permi tted under the Amendment rig Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 19 95 . This new Act permits a search and evidence whi c h is obtained as a res ult of eizure , if the search or seizure wa s carried out in s c ircumstances justifying an objectiv ely reasonable belief ourth Amendment , even that it was in conformity with the F in the case of warrantless searches . This Act applies to all citizens und er the guise of o State law Federal law enforcement . It wi ll apply t nforcement , however , only if the Sta tes adopts the "good e faith exception " to the Act , indepen dently . In addition , , " What form of there lies the answer to the questio n government issuance has the power of authority to enable a e law? " The answer is the Exclusion ary voluntary forfeitur Rule Reform Act of 1 995 . All Consti tutional laws of asmuc h as there Congress bind the c itize ns of every State in no authority within the States to " a rrest the operation is of a law of Congress 84 . " If the c itizens believe crime is of such great urgency ntry that they are willing to forfei t a right in this Cou s , given to them under the Constitution of the Unit ed State 44 then the people have a right to direct the Congress to alter the Constituti o n 85 to provide for such forfeiture . Therefrom , both t h e sove reign expressly authorized the United States Congress , as did the voice of the people to propose amendments whenever two-thirds of both houses " shall think fit ." To reiterate , the founders recognized that the Constit ution shall enab l e the people full power of rights , that this power flows immediately from them , the people , that this power is delegated to the ir officers for the public goo d , and , finally , that the people ' s rulers are the servants of the people , amenable to their will , and created for the people ' s us 8e 6 The framers of the Constitution intended that Congress sha ll be expressly authorized by the sovereign and "uncontrollabl e voice of the people " to propose amendments whenever two-thirds of both houses shall think fit . Consequent ly, the people would only have to manifest their "uncontrollable voice " and insist upon the making of a new law e nabling the use of new Concealed weapons Detection Technology . Modern Day Appreciation of the Fourth Amendment Through survey questions , t h e study addressed the Fourth Amendment issue as it applied to a new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology search . A two -part question posed to the Responde nts fol l owed : The s urvey asked : 1 . ) 45 Whether they thought the use of the new Concealed Weapons De ection Te c hn o logy would be an infringement of their Consti utional right to be free from unreasonabl e searches and seizures as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, and, 2 . ) If they thought that it would be, whether they would be willing to give up that right to permit police officers the use of the n e w Concealed Weapons Detection Technolog y in their line of civic duty? The resul ts of the study indicate that 49 percent of the Respondents believe it wo uld be an infringement , while 51 percent of the Respondents believe that it would not . Wh en questioned whether they would give up that Constitutional right to permit police use of the new technology if they thought doing so would decrease crime , 62 percent of the Respondents stated they would forfeit that right even if they believed it would be an infringement on their Constitutional right . Modern Day Search and Seizures Issues A search incident to arrest is not generally It is permitted by common - considered unconstitutiona l. law rules , and occasions little controversy in the Supreme Court 87 _ However , a justifiable expectation of privacy of t he defendant mu st not be violated in the seizure . Case law precedence advises that priva cy of person aga inst 46 in t ru s i on c an and s ho uld b e expec t e d . I n g o ve rnmental r a n ar r est has occ urred , ca se law has d e e rmining whethe n e d its ruli ng s o n t h e subj e c t i ve standards, s u c h as i bas States 88 ? The Co urt i n the legendary c as e Katz v . United Katz a dvised t hat the perso n must demonstrate an e , of privacy . The Katz expectation , a lbei t subject iv nale has now reasonabl e e xpe ctati on of p rivacy ratio concepts which previously displace d prop e rty- own e rshi p e might ha ve s uppo rt e d e ither standing to suppress or th establishmen t o f an int e r e s t that has been invaded . Thus , t is no long e r sufficient to allege possession or i stablish the interest . ownership of se ized goods to e 8 9 roadened the I n Califo rnia v . Hodari , t he Court b standard . The Court rul ed that to be s ub ject ive izure of a person , there considered a Fourth Amendme nt se either application of phys ical force or submission must be The Court further wrot e ty . t o the assertion of authori that an arrest occurs or is complete the moment the rresting suspec t is n o longer free to walk away from the a the Hodari , ruling another officer . In acquiescence w ith is Court 90 warned that a person ' s expectation of privacy Katz Court , intact . Following the prece dence in the United States v . Mendenhal l 91 , found Justi c e Stewart in d within the that a person is not consid ered to be seize 47 meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless subjectively , that is within a reasonable person standard , the pers on believes that he is not free to leave . The reasonabl e perception standard was subsequently e ndorsed by a majority of Justices 9 2 ? The Supreme Court has since dictated that only if an individual ' s liberty has been restrained may it b e considered that a seizure has occurred . Ultimat ely , the concern of the Court seems to lie litera lly with the interference of one ' s freedom of mo ve me nt . To wit , on e Court concluded that poli ce officers in a squad car driving alongside a suspect who turned and ran down the sidewalk when he saw the squad car approach could not be considered a seizure of the individual. The Court rationalized that becau se there were no siren , flashing lights , display of a weapon , or blocking of the suspect ' s path , the police cond uct would not have communicated to the reasonable person that an attempt was being made to capture or otherwise intrude upon one ' s freedom of movement . That was the scenario in Michigan v . Chesternut 93 , where the Court did not consider it a seizure of the individual . 48 Wa rrantl e ss Searches and Seizures I n h e i ns ance of police officers using Concealed Weapo ns De t ec tion Te chnology to search a suspect for con cea led weapons , seizure of a citizen perhaps may not be a n i s su e 94 ? Factually , a person s hould not even be aware t hat h e h a d b ee n searched with the Concealed Weapons Detec ion Te c hn o logy . Therefore , any expectation they may con ce i ve o f privacy would remain intact , as the Court admo nished in Mendanhall 95 ? The on ly t ime a suspect wo uld be s e ized is if the suspect is found to be c arrying contraband , or a concea led weap on , specifically a concealed gun , for which the i ndividual could not prove to the police o ffi c er it had been legally obtained , even in states wh e re carrying a concealed weapon is permi tted 96 ? In other words , this search could be considered a l eg itimat e warrantless search . Concealed Wea pons Detection Technology could be a very nonintrusive means of protectin g the p ublic , a n d po l ice off i cers from violent use of concealed weapons . After all , a police officer need only have a mere suspicion 97 of crimina l activity afoot to justify a warrantless search . Moreover , a police officer needs only to prove probable cause to justify a warrantles s arrest which certainly does not require so much information that it proves a s uspect 49 guil y beyond a reasonable d oubt, United States v . Co r ez 8 ? Th e Supreme Court held in Cortez that police officers must have " articulable reasons ," o r "founded suspic ions , " derived from t he totality of the circumstances as the basis befo re permitting a stop . The police officer must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity , or in the anonymous tip context, the same basic approach requiring some corroboration , regardless . In this instance , h owever , the Concealed weapons Detection Te c hnology would provide he proof . A p o lice off icer would not need to confront an individual unless the Concealed Weapons Detect ion Technology detected a concealed weapon or other illegal contraband concealed on the person , fulfilling the probable ca us e prere quisite . There are those who could consider the Concealed Weapons Detection Techno logy scanner a warrantless search, and possibly, before the 1970s and early 1980s , they would During the 1970s , the Supreme Court was have been right . 99 divided between adhering to the warrant-based rule , and the view that warrantless searches are , per se , 1 00 unreasonable , with the carefully prescribed " exceptions ." However , during that time period , and guided by the 50 variable e xpe c tation of privacy approach to coverage of the Four h Ame ndme n t , th e United States Supreme Court broadened its vie w of permissible exceptions to the required warrant o search , a nd o f the scope of those exceptions . Albei t , t h e wa r r an t -base d standard did preclude a number of warrant less searches 101 , howe ver , by 19 92 , the " re ' a 1 so dln 0a 2 bl e n e ss " approach prevai e - Cons e quently , by the ear ly 199Os , exceptions to the warrant requirement did prevail , tending to confine appli ca ti o n of the requirement , and , thereafter , to cases that is exclusively crimina l in nature. Albeit , within that c o nfine of exceptions which have been broadened , a c at e g o ry which could become the springboard for the a cceptance and legalization of Concealed Weapons Detection Techn o logy , is the category of administrative searches which the court justifies by "specia l needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement ." The Supreme Court --under t hi s classification of " administrative " exception searches - -upheld warrantless searches by admini strative authorities limiting the administrative needs to p ublic schools , 103 government offices , prisons , the probation system , and cases of drug testing of public and transportation The same standards , w e hm icp hl o ly ee ges a1 l0 i4 z. e d these 51 exceptions, could be appropriately applied to legalizing th use of Co ncealed Weapons Detection Technology. The valid search without a warrant has been growing in number A la tn hd o ub gr he a pd rt oh b. a ble cause Constitutionally and judicially is never to be established or satisfied retroactive to a search or seizure , but must be satisfied by conditions exist ing prior to the police officer ' s stop , under Terry v . Ohio , the precedent was set whereby it is permissible for a police officer to stop an individual if the police officer ' s suspicion " has b een 105 aroused by that individual ' s conduct or manner . " Under such circumstances , a hands-off search of that individual Subsequently , Terry permits would be warranted and legal . police officers to frisk a suspect , to conduct literally a 106 h ands -on pat down of a suspect ? Surely , it could be argued that Terry limitations would also permit a "hands-of f" pat down using Concealed The Court in Terry Weapons Detection Technology . rationalized that the object of the " frisk is to discover dangerous weapons , and it must , therefore , be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns , knives , clubs , or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer107 ." The concea l ed Weapons Detection 52 Technology search could prove to be the more safe, efficient , and less intrusive way to frisk a suspect . A lite ral Terrt pat-down requires the po lice officer to bring the individual to a stop , confront the individual with the police o ffi ce r ' s s uspi cions , possibly creating a public spectacle whi c h often brings in the witnessing public, physically patting down the suspect , and coming up e mpty -handed . Wh e reby the Concea led Weapons Detection Technology wo uld search the individual in seconds and the individual wo u l d be none t he wiser . A s u spect would b e searched nonintrusively , hands-off , and any , possibly unwarranted , public embarrassment aspect for the individual would be el iminate d . There would be no need to confront the suspect , unless warranted , e liminating risk of harm to the p o lice o fficer and the witnessing public , were the suspect armed and dangerous . Just as compelling is the probability that the concealed Weapons Detection Techno logy would eliminate the possibility of creating that public Police stops often lead s tp oe c ut na nc el ce e. ssary and disturbing involvement of the witnessing public , especially i n hot-spot crime areas . Lack of confrontation might develop into healing old wounds and an imosity between police off icers and the communiti es they serve . 53 Moreove r , if a po lice officer uses Con c ealed Weapons Detection Tec hn o l o gy , and the suspect turns out t o be armed , t he po li ce offi ce r will have the advantage o f s u r Up lr tis ime a. tely , the police officer will have the opportuni ty o f s e tting up surveillance of the suspect , o r if t here are more th a n one , the benefit of calling for backup before con f r onting and stopping the individual . The police office r will have the additional benefit of securing the area fo r the welfare of the general public, as well as f o r th e p o lice officer , and potentially making an arrest without inc ident or violen ce . Unrea sonable searches a nd Seizures Unre asonable searches a nd seizures may not even be a n is s ue in instituting the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Te c hn o l ogy . Nonintrusive , nonrevea ling searching by Co n c eal e d Weapons Detection Technology may not be considered by the courts an unreasonable search and seizure . Albei t , there are t hose who could argue that searching an ind ividual with hands-off , Concealed Weapons Detection Technology wou ld invade an individual ' s expectancy of privacy on public streets . However , unexpectedly going int o an emergency room at hospital where one ' s belongings are confiscated and exposed prov ide s one with far less personal privacy . In both instances , the 54 ind i vidual did not give I nh i bs o tp he r im nsis tasi no cn e. s if a conce aled weapon were found , the proper authority would b aler ed . There is case law to support such bodily 108 intrusion whil e in an emergency room ? In such a situation , nothing the individual may be hiding on t heir person is considered private, and may be seen by others , whether Cby o nc ch eo ai lc ee d or chance. Weapon s Detection Technology should be considered less intrusive t ha n a visi At Ct Wo D Ta n s ee am re cr hg ency room . reveals only what is meant to be detected - - concealed weaponry , o r contraband--not private body parts . Another issue a lmost surely to be argued will be the c arte blanche use of the concealed Weapons Detection Just as sure l y , the i T se sc uh en ology by police officers . of abuse of the new CWDT technology by rogue cops will be argued . In answer to both concerns , what is the most damage e ither scenario could create considering the nature and given the limitations of the Concealed Weapons Detection Te c hnology1 09 ? It would be a misrepresentation to consider Concealed weapons Detection Technology an onerous policing initiative . To permit the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would be an initiative , true , however , not an initiative to aid the police in harassing minorities . 55 To permit the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would be an initiative of the police to protect the public - at-large from being assaulted with concealed weapons , to prevent c hildren from entering school yards heavy with artillery , to prevent the shopkeeper from being robbed and shot to death , to prevent terrorists from boarding airplanes , and to prevent the police from mistaking an unarmed citizen for an armed citizen and shooting and often killing that unarmed citize An ll. of these tragedies all too often have been evidenced in this However , t N hea yti o an l. s o evidence some of the reasons for innovative policing initiatives such as Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . This technology would be used in a proactive manner to not only monitor and curb cr iminal activity to keep our streets safe , but also to monitor and c urb police abuse activity . It could put an e nd to growing complaints of police profiling and overzealousness . There is very little chance of a police officer being accused of abusing this new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology inasmuch as the technology has no abusive The police off i ce r ' s duti f ee sa t wu ore uls d. remain the same - -to confront individuals thought to be involved in criminal activity . The fact that an individual searched 56 would not be aware that they are being searched should reduce the suspicion and accusations that this new Concealed Weapo ns Detection Technology is another t ool of ra cia l oppression. This new technology would neither interfere with an individual ' s freedom to congregate in public plac ne os r, Citizen d se t se hr o ufr ldee d beo m n eto it ht era r v ae wl a. re nor concerned with the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Th e use of a concea T lee dc h wno ealo pog ny s. detector search would go undetected by any law- abiding individua Al . l beit, law-abiding citizens would not or should not be acting in a Thus , law su -asp bii dci io ngu s c, itc ir zi em ni sn al manner . would not be suspected of being involved in criminal activity , and thus , would not cause a police officer to feel compelled to search the individual for concealed Regardless , ev w ene a wpo en res o anr c ino nn otr ca eb na tn d . citizen mistakenly searched , it would remain a benign situation . The Healing Aspect of Concealed Weapons Detector Technology Perhaps this new technology would stop criminal Perhaps , even , p thro isf il ni en wg t. echnology would evidence how wrong those police officers are who are prone to the belief that certain minorities are habitual carriers of dangerous , concealed weapons an Fd o rc o tn ht or sa eb and . 57 citizens ' rights activists who are already brainstorming to conclude that minorities will be targeted by police of icers , that s hould not be a serious co ncern . If minorities or any group happens to be target e d by poli ce officers , how many harms ca n be done to justify outrage by even the staunchest of human rights activists? Con cealed Weapons Detection Technology would be a nonintrusive ; benign albeit invasion of an individual ' s p erhap s expected personal privacy . Nevert heless , citizens would be none the wi ser , and should be no ne the wiser , yet remain unharmed . An individual , be it minority or otherwise , would maintain their dignity even if they were suspected of criminal activity by a police officer , and had been discretely searched by Concealed weapons Detection Technology. There are those who will argue that this type of technol o gy will violate the general public as does " Big Brother ' s " snooping . This new concealed weapon s Detection Tech nology could b e a means back to the morality and safety of the 1950s when chi ldre n were safe to play on t he streets and in the parks without worry of gun violence or drug trafficking , and when the biggest problems for schoo l personnel were student tardiness , ta l kativeness , a nd gum chewing . It is difficult for many h igh schools to be t h e safe , order l y and 58 secure place they once were, and still must be if children Fe a ar re ot fo cl re ia mr en s. tudies have found that minority children , especially those living in crime-ridden areas feel that their life could end at any given moment. However , not only minority children are affected by the state of the nation ' Ts h ec r Fi em de es rao lf violence . Bureau of Investigation and the National School Boards Associated reported that by the early 1 990s , three million thefts and vio l ent crimes were occurring each year on or near 1 10school campuses ? Perhaps if these chi ldren did not feel so defenseless every day of their lives , perhaps they would not have the If they were not carrying weapon s n , eed to carry weapons . perhaps fewer crimes would " happen ." Hence , researchers are reporting that as a consequence of campus crimes , and the occurrence of atrocious student- on-student violence such as the shootings on school campuses in Arkansas , Colorado , Georgia , Kentucky , Mississippi , and Oregon , expeditious , decisive , and proven action is demanded by the public - at-large to make our schools safe once again . Perhaps just letting it be known that such Concealed weapons Detection Technology exists and is readily available to law e n forcement officials would be e nough to deter the blatant carrying of concealed weapons 59 and contraband , a nd t he adde d p otential o f deterring viole nt conceal e d weapon s crimes . Th e det e rrent aspect of th is ne w Co ncea l e d Weapo n s Dete c tion Techno l o g y i s an attractive feature f o r Individuals c arry i n a gu t horizing and initiating its use. c oncealed contrab a nd, e xplosives , or weapons will de c ide dl y a nd have plenty o f legitimate reason to worry about this H n oe ww eC veo rn ,c e ta hl ee sd e We apo ns Detection Technology . i ndividu a l s t h e Na ti on-at-large want ca ught , and rightfully punis hed , acco rdingly , b e fore they are able to use their Ultimate c lo yn ,c ealed weap o ns t o commit viol e nt crimes . t hese individuals would be ca ught randomly while walking publi c s treets by police officers carrying Con cea l ed surely , criminals will learn Weap o ns Detection Technology . t o t hink twice before leaving their homes carrying c o ncealed weapons or contraband . The Constitutionality of New Concea l ed Weapons De t ection Technology Be f o r e a warrantless search such as a Concealed We apo ns Detection Technology search and potential seizure can be justified and ad judicated , the poli ce officer conducting the search and seizure must have reasonable belief that there is good reason to conduct such search and 11 1 In other words , the probab l e cau se discussed s e izure. p r e vi ously , which would be the litmus test to warrant 60 Co ncealed We apons Detection Techn o l ogy searchi ng of an C i rn id mi iv ni ad lu aal c. t ivity by an ind i vidua l must be on he police o f fice r ' s mi nd before searchin g an individual. Ad ve rs a ries o f the new Co ncea l ed Weapon s Detection Techn o l ogy may questi o n the legal and Co nst i t utional i mplica ions of po l ice o f f i c ers mis t akenly searc hing an i nd ividual a nd the individual is found not to be carrying o n t h e ir p e rson a n y i llega l we apons o r con t r a b a nd . This is s u e wo uld be of sign ificance , only if the p o li ce officer did n o t have probable ca use to stop o r ques t ion t h a t Howe i vn ed ri ,v i ud nu la el s s. a Terry stop appli es . Notwithstanding a n y l ega l precede nce , th e indiv idual wo uld no t b e , a nd need not be t he wi ser o f thi s searc h , and the p o li ce o ffi ce r wo ul d conti nue cond uct ing pol i ce bu s iness , Conse qu e ntl y , a p o t e a ns t iu as lu lya l . c on f r ontati onal a nd dangerous han ds - o n sea rch situation was just ave rt e d . Ultimately , s u c h situa ti ons coul d be avoide d daily by p o li ce of fi ce rs e quipped with concealed We apon s De tecti o n Techno l ogy . suc h s c enarios wo uld keep t h e poli ce office r a nd t h e ge nera l pub li c sa f e . Th is n e w conceal e d we apons De t ecti o n Te c h n o l o gy could even be u seful in prot ecting priso n g uards fr om unsuspected attack , o r f r om priso ne rs atta c king othe r inmat e s . In a dditi o n , t h e new CWDT could quickly search passengers as 61 they b oard airpla nes . Th e p o s s i bi litie s o f Con cea l ed wea p o n s Detection Tech no l o g y as a cr ime fig h t er a nd c r i me d ete rrent are limi ed o n ly by crimin o l ogi s t s ' imag inat i o n . Fo r just t h e a b ove reasons state d , the n e w Conce al e d we apons Detection Techn o l o g y sho uld not be considered "uncontro lled search e s a nd s e i z ure s ,u or t oo ls which will t h e individual 11 2" c rush the spirit of ." Thus , h o w invading and unco n st i t u t i o n a l i s Co n c ealed Weapons Detecti o n Tec hn o logy? I nd ividu a l s are s ca nn e d daily as the y go t h rough detector s t a ll s in Courthouses and airpo rts , and ot her pub lic place s . These scans are r e portedly i neffectu a l . In c omparison, hand- held Co n c ealed Weapons Detect i o n Techno l o gy would be no more intrusive or invading of o n e ' s b o dy , dignity , human and civil rights , or Fourth Ame ndme nt rights to be free from unreasonable searches a nd se izure s than these stalls , a nd they have the potential to b e e f fec tua l . Surely , some could argue that the use of Concealed We apo n s De t ecti o n Te chno logy would be an unre asonable search and seizure , but how appropriate would the ir argument be legally or Constitutionally speaking? Justice Marshall argued that " grave threats to liberty o ften come in times of urgency , whe n Constit u tional rights s e em too extravagant to endure 113 .u Is not the Nati o n now in a stat e o f c riminal urgency? 62 To answer that question , we need only to answer the nex Are we all afraid to leave our homes at night , to walk he public streets , to go to the movi e theatre , or to a shoppi ng mall? All too often , and throughout different demographics , the study survey results reflect the affirma tive to these and other questions indicative of o ppression by fear of crime . Possibly out of fear , t h e maj o rity of the Respondents in the study indicate they wo uld want the new concealed Weapons Detection Technology located , inter alia , in all movie theatres and shopping malls . Nevertheless , does this " grave " fear threaten us today to the point that we are now willing to forfeit those Consti t utional rights spoken of by Justi ce Marshall , specifically our Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures? The results of this study strongly indicate that people are willing to voluntarily forfeit that Fourth Amendment right to combat crime . What Interests are Protected by the Fourth Amendment? For the Fourth Amendment to be appli cable to particular set of facts , there must be a " search " and " seizure" effectuated by police officers , occurring typical ly in a criminal case , and the subsequent seized matter used judicially against the individual searched . 63 The factor s usually considered in ma ki ng this determinat ion are whet h e r th e individual ' s interests were Co nstit utionally infringed , what were the individual ' s i n terest , a nd whether that interest was officially abused. I n a ddit i on , what if the seized contraband wa s not used against t he individual in a cou rt of Law . Olmst e ad v . United States 114 might be appropriate case l a w to app l y to the Concealed weapons Det ection Technology In Olmst i es as du ,e , t hi ef Ct oh ue r tc a hs ee l dh ad stood . that wiretapping was not covered by the Fourth Ame ndment be c ause there had been no actual physical invasion of the Altho d ue gf he n td ha en rt e' s h ap dr e bm een an invasion ises . ' a technical trespass , electronic surveillance was not 11 5 deemed subject to Fourth Amendment restrictions . The Court later , however , rejected this approach and recognized that the principal object of the Fourth Amendment is the protection of the privacy rather than property , and increasingly discarded fictiona l and procedural barriers 116 The Court held tha th a t t rested o n property concepts because the Fourth Ame ndment is intended to protect people , and not places , the requirement of actual physical trespass is dispensed with and electron i c s urve illance was made ' s u b Ject to ? t he Fou 1r 1t 7h Amendme n t ' s requirements . 6 4 The test continues to be an expectation of privacy upon whi c h one ma Ay lbju es itt ,i fi wa hb al ty o nr ee ly . knowingly exposes to the public , in h i s own home, or his office is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection . However , what an individual seeks to preserve, as private, even in an area accessible to the publ i c , may be Constitutionally protected11 8 . Albeit , the consensus probably would be , if asked , that illegally concealed weapons and contraband should not be Constitutionally one could us e this p p rr eo mte ic sete d to r cig hh alt ls e. n ge legally o r Constitutionally the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology. A balancing standard appears to have emerged , however , which requires an assessment of the nature of a particular practice and the likely extent of its impact on the individual ' s se Tn hs ue s ,o f security . to be balanced agai nst the utility of the conduct as a technique of law enforcement , i . e . , the new Concealed Weap ons Detection Technology . n Un?i ted States v . -Wh i? t 119 I e , the Court expresse d the view that as the intrusions grow more extensive and significantly jeopardize the sense o f se c urity of the individual , greater restraint of police officers through the warrant requirement may be deemed necessary . Ultimately , the court ' s solicitude for l a w enforcement 65 objec ives may tilt the balance in the other direction , and the use of CWDT may be acceptable under this solicitation . The test of pr ivacy no w utilized by the Court is to determine wheth e r t h e interest invaded is important o r persuasive e no ugh s o that a warrant is required to justify it 120 Courts have fo und that the re is diminished expectat i o n o f privacy in an automobile and in a mobile h ome . Ho we v e r , a person ' s expectation of privacy in personal luggage and other closed containers is 12 1 subst a ntially greater than in an automobil e . Ex c epti ons to the warrant requirement are no longer e valuat e d solely by the justifications for the exception . Exige nt 122 circumstances and the scope of the search is no l o n ge r ti e d to and limited by the justification for the The cour e t x hc ae sp t pio en rm. itted a considerable expansion of the power o f police and other authorities to 123 conduct searches , beyond the precedence s 2et before Kat ? Valid Consent searches Under the Fourth Amendment The Supreme court has stressed the importance of warrants and referred to searches without warrants as " exceptional ." Ho wever , there have been numerous " exceptional " searches and arrests without warrants . Th e CWDT could be acce Cp ote nd se nu tn der these exceptions . searches O w nea i mve ay the Fourth Amendment rights . 66 co ns e o search of h i s person or premise s by police offic rs hat have no t c omplied w ith the Fourth 124 nsent searches might include b o rd er Amen ment . Othe r co searches , fo ll owing longstanding right of the sovereign t o persons and property pro ect it by s t opping and examin ing s 1 25 h e Unit e d State ? Such a searc h would crossing i n to t j u s ify p o li ce o fficers using the new CWDT at airports . o be protected by " Op e n f i e ld " searches were held n ot t e Four h Ame ndme nt . Po lice office r searches in such h areas as p a stures ; wo oded areas , open water , and vacant ts of warrants and l o t s nee d no t c omply with the req uiremen 12 Surely , the new CWDT would be Prob a ble c aus e ? pe rmiss ibl e under the " open field " standard . "Plain view " en field " Fourth i s somewh a t similar in rationale to " op ent protection . The "plain view " rule espouses that Ame ndm o bje c ts falling in the " plain vie w " of an officer who has a ve that view are subject right to b e in the position to ha t o s e izure without a war ra nt , and that if the officer needs se to search and seize , his lawfu l a warrant or probable cau observation will provide grounds therefor . This doctrine t that is limited ; however , by the proba ble cause requiremen have probable cause to be where h e was at an officer must el l i? n t o " plai? n vi? e w1 2 7 ." th Here als o e time the object f 67 he new CWDT capabilitie s could be permitted without violating the " plain view " standard . In Ne w Jersey_ v . T . L . 0 . 128 , th e Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school aut ,h orities requiring neither a warrant I nan so mr up cr ho bable caus e . as school officials act as representatives of the State , the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by However, given p u thb eli c n as tc uh ro eo l o fo f thfi ec ia ls. crimes being committed in schools of late , case law reflects that the court now holds that school settings require some eas ing o f the restrictions to whi c h searches by public autho Thr eit i Ce os u ra tr e ordinarily subject . now holds that neither the warrant requirement nor the pr To hb ea b Cl oe urc ta u hs ae s standard is appropriate . limited this r uling , and requires that a search must b e However , a r e sa is mo pn la eb le at its inception . reasonableness standard governs all searches of students ' , , 129 pers o ns and effects by school a u thorities There must , nevertheless , be reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the stude nt has violated or is violating either the law or the consequen tly , inasmuch as Cour r tu s les of the s 1 3c 0hool ? already hold that school settings require some easing of the restrictions of searches by public authorities , and now 68 hold t hat ne i t her the warrant requirement nor the probable cause standa rd i s appropriate , poli c e officers as s igne d to the schoo l s could be e quippe d with the new CWDT. Simi l ar princ iples apply to public employers ' work- related sea r c he s o f its employees' o ffices , desks , or fil e cabi nets , except th a t i n this c ontext the Court distinguis he d searc he s co nducted for law e nforcement pu r poses . The Court held that neither a warrant nor a probable cause requirement should apply to employer searche s " f o r non-investigator , work-related purposes as 13 1 we ll as f o r investigations of work-related mis conduct . With mo r e and more enraged employees shooting and killing the ir fell ow-workers , hand- held devices such as the new Co n ceal e d We apons Detection Technology would not seem an unreas onable safety measure taken by building security guards . Prisons , regulation of probation , and drug testing all qualified as not requiring a reasonableness standard , a warrant, a probable cause , or even individualized s uspici o n . The court held that the Fourth Amendment proscription agains t unreasonable searches does not apply within the confines of the prison cel l, administrative searches of a probationer ' s home , or for ma ndatory drug testing of certai n classes of railroad and public 69 All that was required in t hese instances to employees . , jus ify searches of prison ce lls and probat ioners' homes and for drug test ing 132 , was the spe c ial needs identified as " b eyond the normal need 133 " for law e nforcement . Even though the test continues to be an expectation of privacy upon which one may justifiably rely, what one knowingly exposes to the public , even in his own home, or office , is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. Consequently , when considering the balancing test of one 's expectation of privacy when exposed to the public, and the utility of the use of police invasions , the Fourth Amendment test of privacy now utilized by the Court is to d e termine whether the interest invaded is important or persuasive enough so that a warrant is required to justify it 134 Removing guns from the hands of minors and anyone else whose intent is to cause harm could be reason to tip the The potential benefits scale of Fourth Amendment justice . of using Concealed weapons Detection Technology could include the preservation of public safety and the restoration of the public ' s sense of security . These benefits might be considered by the public at large to outweigh individuals ' expectat ion of privacy on publi c streets . The utility of using concealed Weapons Detection 70 Technology as a technique of law enfo r cement may be deeme d According to t he study res ul ts , t he use of the necessary . new CWDT was considered a n i mport a n t e l eme nt in combating crime and violence , a nd even te rror i s m. The new CWDT would probabl y be lab e l ed by law a warrantless search , and could be considered a violation of individuals ' Co nstit ut i ona l rights. Howe v e r, wh e n the choice is ei ther v i o l a ting a constituti onal right t o b e free from a ne w nonin t rusive , hands off CWDT s e a rch , a nd protecting t he l ives of the peopl e from potential and protracted crime , a ne w CWDT Constitutional violation could be seen as a non-i s sue . Many s u rvey a na lyse s have obse rve d that publi c attitudes concern ing t he na ture o f t he cr ime a nd t he ca uses of crime a r e d irectly linked to public attitude s conce rning Inasmuch as public opinion c r i mi n a l jus ti ce p o licies . s u rveys h e lp move issue s onto the active policy agenda t o d ema nd gove rnme ntal action , and to set boundar i es within whi c h p o li cy alternatives are examined , and ultimately , becaus e l a wma ke r s a nd publi c officials as c ribe to publi c op i ni o n a nd attitude p olls on crime matters , th e n if th e publi c vo i ce s an approval of and demand for the new Con cea led weapons Detection Technology , its acce ptance 71 should be adva nced by law makers p o litically , s ociall y , a nd legally . For e x a mpl e , be c ause of the public's opinion po l ls regardi n g fe ar o f crime , perceptions of the criminal problems , and e valuations of the criminal justice system , especial l y t he po lice , should be evidenced as action in th e role o f gov e rnment funding in fighting crime , gun control and regula tion , and drug policy . Action was evidenced in t h e intent of the Ex c lusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 , wh ich was t o c ontro l crime . This affirmative action was part o f the "Taking sack our Streets Act " contained in the Re publican contract with America . Perhaps the Exclusionary Rul e Re form Act of 1995 after all will justify l ega li zing the use of the new CWDT - The catastrophic event of September 11 , 2 001 has put great pressures on the legislature to make c hanges in the handling o f criminal justice in this country . Although the s urvey for this study was taken before September 11 , 2001 , even at that time the survey responses reflect that the public has a genuine fear of crime either for themselve s or for their family . Crimin o l ogists and other social scientists have been reporting fear as a mighty predictor of human behavior . For this reason , fear of crime is an important element of 72 Spec i fica lly, thi s study was intere ste d in the hi s st ud y . ex t ent of th e depth fea r a nd t h e ro l e i t playe d i n t h e Res p o nd e nts ' willi n gness to fo rfeit t h e i r Fo urt h Ame ndme nt right to b e fr e e from un reaso n a bl e s e a rches and seiz u res to This willingne s s t o s uppo rt the use of the n e w CWDT . f o r f e it t heir Fo u r th Ame ndme nt right by e ndorsing p o li ce o ffi c er use of the n e w con c ealed Weapons Detecti o n Te c h n ology was expre s sed in the survey as a way to h e lp c ombat crime in th e Resp o nde nts ' neighborhood , City, State, and the Nation , t o prevent terrorism, and to pro te c t police off i ce r s from harm , inter -alia . Th e study surv ey analyses indicate that 48 percent of t h e Ma di son a nd D. C . Re spondents fear b e ing a vi c tim of Approx imately 60 percent of all Madison and D.C . cr ime . Res p o nde nts who have been victims of at least one crime would f o rfeit their constitutional right for Concealed We apo n s De tection Technology . Moreover , thirty-one percent o f all Madis o n and D. C . Respondents have at least one family member who has been a victim of crime , and app rox imat e ly 55 percent of these Respondents would forf e it thei r Constitutional right to permit police officer use of the new CWDT . 73 B. The Impact Of Fear Of Crime On Attitudes Albeit , the Nation ' s sense of security has been awakened too abruptly by the senseless school children s hootings , e mployee killings , and the horrific experie nce of September 11 , 200 1. There is little doubt that this Nation feels a sense of urgency from t h is fear . Understandably , this urgency of fear may well incite the Nation to grab a hold of any solution , including forfeiting a Constitutional right i f it promises to make it safer for children to attend school , safer for the public in public places such as in airports , and safer for police officers to d o their duty and protect the genera l public . The devastation of Columbine High School is but one cata l yst that has created an urgent insecure state in which we now find the Nation. Another catalyst is the racial profiling and police brutality reported in the ma ss media . Most notably , the shooting by New York police officers of an unarmed Black male Guinean immigrant, Amidou Diallo. 1 35 The media reported this shooting as brutal, even though in this instance , the police officers thought Mr. Diallo was carrying a concealed weapon. Finally, the terror of September 11, 2 00l , truly catapulted the Nation into terror and for the firs t time , insecurity within its own Country . 74 Surely , these tragedies give rise to Justice Marshall ' s " grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency , when Constitutional rights seem too extravagant to e ndure. " 136 Is not the Nation now in a state of criminal urge ncy? Is not there a great threat to the liberty of the Nation? It wou ld seem accurate to believe that Justice Marshall was speaking of the troub l es t h e Nation now faces . Consequently , these grave threats to the liberty of the Nation created such great urgency that our Constitutional rights to Fourth Amendment protection seems " too extravagant to endure . " It is may be j ust these u rge n t issues t hat will make the public receptive to inst i t utin g po l ice officer use of That the new Concealed weapon s Detection Technology . The majority appears to be the case in t he instant study . of the Respondents be l ieve t hat Co ncea l ed Weapons Detection Technology should be used to address the ris ing national e pidemic of students ' attacki ng fe llow st udents , po l ice i n ter alia brutality on unarmed citizens , terror i s m, a n d , ~ - ? ' crimes commi tted in p ub li c p l aces and on publ i c streets . The emp i rical evidence from t h e s tudy r ef l ects tha t a primary reason for this ma j orit y opinion i s f ear , fea r of crime for t h emse l ves and or fear for a f ami l y member . 75 Criminol ogists and sociologists have found that the desire to be free from this type of grim fear is a strong 1 37 indicator of protective and proactive behavior , such as vol un tarily forfeiting one ' s Constitutional right to permit the use of the new CWDT. This study supports that It found that those wh o fear theoretical proposition . c rime are mo r e likely t han not to forfeit a Constitutional right , specifically their Fourth Amendment rights . Fear of Crime Theory Fear was an important component of this study , however , not just fear , ~~' but fear of cr ime . The study takes the position of the study that the mo re one fears victimization , either for themselves or for a family member , the more likely one will seek despera te protective The protective measure of primary interest in measures 138 . this study is , of course , the n ew Concealed Weapons one research question of interest in Detection Technology . this study is what would cause a n i ndividual to voluntarily forfeit a constitutiona l right in an effort to c urtail crime? The value of examining fear is to determine whether it is a reliable predictor of such voluntary forfeiture . Past and present fear of crime research literature intimate that the possibility is not inconceivable . 76 Research studies have found the fear of crime in the Uni ed States to be quite significant and widespread. Studies o n fears of crime emphasize that various proximate cau se s o f fear and the crime fear in question is relevant to one ' s s t a t e o f mind. Elements of importance in determining the power o f fear to compel a person to vo luntarily f o rfeit a Constitutional right were that fear mu s t be of a particular type , of a certain amount of that pa r i c ular type of fear , and inter~' one ' s ne ighborhood . Empirical models of fear of crime included as predictors , level of incivility in the area , perceived 13 9 level of crime in the area , and neighborhood cohesion ? The various studies 140 reported that the above variables were shown to have an impact on fear of crime as well as one ' s age , sex , race , and any combination of socio- This study included all of these psychological factors . variables . Victimization -- Risk and Perception Sociologists , psychologists , and crimino l ogists have reported fear of crime as an empirical predictor of human social research scholars believe once a person behavior. experiences being a violent crime vict im, that person 141 begins to f ear many types of criminal vict imization . Studies have surmi sed that greater trauma may create a 77 gre ater spillover effect, that v i o l e nt vi c timi za tion i s often mo r e t rauma ic tha n less con f r ontat ional p roperty vi c timizations , a nd t hat v i o l e nt v i ctimi zat i o ns may be more like l y to lead t o heightene d perception s o f neighborhood dis o rder , which i n t u r n inc reas e s f ea r of any c rime , inc luding c rimes othe r t han the viol e nt crime one ha s 14 2 a l ready experienced ? In most researc h s tudi e s on the fear crime relations h i p, it is b e lieved that sociodemographic c harac t e r is t ics and individual vi c timization comprise the variab les bel i eved t o indica te vulnerability to c rime fear . Schola r s g e nera l ize that f ea r is a multidimensional concept; that the re are various dimensions of the concept o f f e ar, and components of fear that need to be Spe c ifically , t heo r e ti c ally and empirically distinguished . t wo c omponents of fear being a cognitive or risk perception 1 43 component , and an emotion or " being afraid" component . Pe ople being people , respond in different ways to crime and some reports find that some individuals may fe ar o f c rime . a vo id particular places at particular times ; some may purc ha s e protec tive equipment such as burglar alarm syst ems , and deadbolt locks ; some may form neighborhood c rime watch groups or coa l itions against crime ; some may modify their daily routines and lifestyles ; and some may 78 change their living arrangements , and mode or method of For other persons, crime and fear of ransporta i o n1 44 . crime may have n o discernibl e impact on their " affective 14 5 states , or behavior ." Many of the st udi es on the fear crime relationship agree that individuals who have been previously victimized are believed to be vulnerab l e for further victimi zation . One study me ntioned that a strong predictor of fear of C ri.m e ot h e r than sociodemograph.i c variables was crime- studies ide ntified crime - related 146 related experien ces ? experiences for instance , as the individual ' s previous victimization hist ory , knowing others who have been crime victims , or knowi ng t h e c rime rate in the residents' severa l studies find t hese crime-related n e ighborhood . 147 experiences strong predictors of fear of c rime . Related 2erceptions to Fear of Crime The U. S . Department of Justice , Bu reau of Justice atistics in 1995 reported t hat , similar to ou r Nation ' s st general pattern of violent victimization rates , hous e hold perceptions of crime as a problem arose during the late l980 ' s and ear ly l990 ' s , and then leve l ed off , and However , d i fferences in perception conti nues to l eve l off . Eve n tho ugh of c ri?m e and actual victimizati?o n were f oun d . crime later dropped sharply from 1994 to 1995 , perceptions 79 crime was a neighborhood problem remained re la tively ha were The statistics indicate that Black households slable . much more likely than Ca ucasian households to indicate crime was a neighborhood problem were. According to the U. S . Department of J ust ice , Bureau of Justice Statistics , in 1995, 2 . 5 times as many Black households fo und crime was a problem, however , the difference was not nearly as large for a c tual The report indicated that 27% of Black victimization . house ho lds exp er ienced one or mor e cr imes , compared to 23% of Caucasian households exper i e nced one or mor e cr imes . In 97 , a statewide survey focused on fear of crime and 19 related perceptions . The study was conducted by Florida ate University School of criminology and Criminal st Justice , a nd the results of the s u rvey were presented in e publication , Fear of crime and Related Perceptions in th Florida - 1997 , Final Report, June 1998 . A random sample of 4 , 500 Florida adults , 18 years of age or older from the The re had 1990 census figures responded to th e survey . been a 16 % criminal victimization rate wit h in the Respondents ' house ho l ds du r i ng t he p reviou s year . The characteristics of t he survey were 53 % female , 11 % 16 % Hispanic , 92 % high school graduate , 36% college Black , fear of crime was graduat e , and 17 % age 65 or older . 80 assessed by me ans of a survey of one basic question of " o n a scale from o n e t o ten , with one being not at all fearful and ten b e ing very fearful , h ow much would you say you fear having yo u r c a r stolen , having someone break into your home while you are away , having someone break into your home while you are t he r e , being robbed or mugged on the street , bei n g r ape d o r sexually assaul ted , a nd being murdered. Having high fear was averaging an 8+ across the six crimes with 48+ o f possible 60 . This study reported in 1997 a mean level of fear in Florida as 2 8 . 45. A breakdown of the percentage of Re spondents expressing high fear was 16 . 8% . As o ther r e s e arch studies indicate , women (23 . 5%) expressed a s ub s tantially higher fear of crime t han men (9.3 %) did . This research found that Hispanics (42 . 5% of female Respondents , and 16 . 4% of male Respondents) are more likely to express higher fear of crime than Blacks (29 . 7% female and 14 . 7 % mal e) , or Caucasians (15 . 9% femal e and 6 . 1% male) . Moreover , in contradiction to other studies , the Florida study reported that a high fear of c rime was more common among younger Respondents aged 18 to 2 4 (2 0 . 4 %) , a nd less common for older Respondents 65 years of age a nd o lder In contradi ct i on , other research (1 2 s. t9 u) d . ies report 81 hat lhe elderl y have been more fearful of crime than younger individuals . In the instant study , 56 % of the age group 30 to 45 report fear of crime ; 54 % of the age group 18 to 29 years of age report fear of crime ; 50% of the age group 44 to 59 report f e ar of crime ; and 33% of the age group 60 to 84 years of age report fear of crime . The oldest age group repor ts the least fear of crime . Moreover , within the male group , 58 % of the mal es report fear of crime , whereas within the women group , 38 % of the women report fear of crime . Of all Respondents who report fear of crime , 60 % are men . Thes e results are stat i stically significant at the (X 2 4 . 006 , 2t , . 045) . In addition , 50 % of the Black race report fear of crime , whereas 47 % of the Ca ucas i an race repor t fear of crime . The variable race ref l ects t hat Caucasians (men 63 % and women 37% ) fear crime in comparison to the Black race (men 61% and women 39%) . In the i n stan t study , usin g fear as a predictor of willing forfeiture , of t he Mad i son a nd D. C. Res p ond e n ts wh o would forfei t t h e i r Cons ti t u t i o na l r ight , a pproximately 29 p e r cent are the younger Respondent s 1 8 to 29 years of age . Seventy-one percen t of the Mad i son a nd D. C . o l der Respondents 30 years of age and o l der would forfeit their 82 Consti uti o nal right co p 1 omote the use of the new Con c ealed Weapo ns D Lee t i crn Te chn o l ogy. The statistics reflect t hat t h e o l ~ 1 Mad i ~ m and D. C . Respondents ar more likely t c o rf ei L he i i ::::ons t i tutional righ t t han he yo u nger Res p o ndent . Th ese L i 1dings were consistent with previous s udies , u in c?o nsi stent with the Florida s tudy. In the ins an ? s lu y , o i all Respondents who would fo r feit the i r Cons i uLi o nal : ight , women (55 %) are more like l y t o forfeit , nd Ca c cls~ ans (61 %) are more like l y to fo rf e it th e i r Constitu i o na J r ights . Even within each gro up , Caucasia n s a % a r ' more likely than not to f o r f eit t heir Consti u j o 11 l r ights and women are more l i kel y tha n n o t a 8 % t o f o rfeit their Constitutional right . One c o ns en s us , to b e di scussed later in the study , among recent and ea rl i re s arch studies is the fact that high fear of c rime d ecrea s with income and increases with prior victimi za ti o n . I n t h i n stant study , of al l Respondents wh o r e p o r t r o f crime , 79% are of high inco me . Within e a c h r o up , SL!% of the high income Respondents se l f-r e ort ? ar of crime , and 47 % of the low income Respondent s se l f -reporl fear of crime . Another c o n sen s us mo ng o ther studies is that Respondents who wa t c h loc l n ws o n television at least 8 3 seven times a we ek are almost twice as likely t o express high fear o f c rim ( J . 7 %) conpared to those wh o d o not wat c h l o cal ne ws a t alJ . 7 ) 14 8 . The instant study did n o t est thi s varia l . Age and Ge nd e r as Pre icc ors o f Fear o f Crime Many c rimin o l ogis s w- 1 n o f a demographic " time bomb " set t o e xpl ode in t: he 11e x t five t o t e n year s . Researc hers r e p o rt th t cr jme will leap in the near future du e t o a pro j ected in c r ase i n the number of male youth who will b e e n tering heir cr ime - prone years . In five to ten years , s upposed l y th e n mbe r s will surge of males between th e ages of 15 a n d 2 4 . oc 1 l Scientists consider this age range th e most '' vi o l e nc - pro " segment of the population in o ur Nati o n 14 9 . Cons e qu e n tJ y, many criminologists contribut e a n y increas e d c r i me rate as merely a reflection o f t h e g r o win g numbers o f yo un J adult males in a given populati o n . The i n s ant study found that 62 % of the Madison Respo ndent s ea r pe r so nal victimization from the ag e gro up o f 1 5 t o 25 , and 5 4% fear property crime from the same ag e gro up . Sev ty pe r ce nt (70 %) of the D. C . Respondents fe a r p e r so nal v ic t _mization from the age group of 15 to 25 , and 70 % f e ar pro erty victimization from the same age group . A research study was conducted to test the fear of the general public to this " viole nce -prone " segment of the h.,.. n emp? iri? ca l s t u d y 150 population . d es i. gne d a pre - an d post- test to poll a community in Santa Ana , California. The study pre-tested the community ' s level of fear of crime in relation to the existence of gangs in the community . A relationship between the community ' s fear of crime and the existence of gangs in the community was noted . After gang vi o lence had been c urtailed in the community , but the community was purposefully not informed , a post - test was given1s1 The post-test reflected no c hange in the community ' s fear of crime although gang violence had been The study ' s results indi c cu atr et da il te hd at. , regardless of the fact that there had been a dramatic drop in youth crimes , or that the crime rates overall had dropped , unless n ei.g hborhood communities are aware of the fact that crime and gang violence had deceased , the neighborhood 15 2 communities ' fear of crime would " in no way be al tered ." In essence , although the gang violence had been curt ai? led , but because the commun? ity was no t aware of that decrease in gang violence , the fear of crime still existed as strong as ever . However , another study conducted revealed that gang affiliation can con U trn id be ur t e? to a mini. ng juveniles ' 85 15 3 However, l e ts hse isn ing of c itizens ' fear of violence ? udy s t did not make note whether the citizens were aware of Nevertheless, the study the decrease i n gang affiliation . s rt o ngly dis counted the inevitability of a crime increase due to a projected increase in the number of youth in the 1 54 crime-pron e years in the near future ? Crimino l ogists have significantly noted that an e mph asi? s on red ucing access to guns an d un d erm?i n ing juveniles ' gang affiliation can contribute to a l essening One study155 suggested of citizens' fear of violence . actions taken to alleviate the grim fear of crime included incr easi? ng police presence in Ne w Yo r k Ci. t Y su b ways and police attention to petty crimes ; a greater involvement of inc r eased cit?i zens i?n public safety programs; incarceration ; early interve ntion to preve nt the evolution of criminal careers ; and a reduced proportion of youth in the population who are in the crime - prone years has reduced These results people ' s fear of being on New York streets . support the theory that the general public ' s fear of crime does not decrease unless they are physically made aware of In some instances th , being a part of the e decrease . solution , a nd in other instances actually seeing a mor e pronounced police presence on the streets and subways , and more police attention being paid to petty crimes of young 86 offenders has redu ced people ' s fea r of being on Ne w York streets 156 . Consequ e n t ly , an a nswe r t o r e du c ing p eop le ' s fear of crime nat i onally c ould entail merely making the ge neral publi c a ware o f the availability and cr ime - deter r ent potent i al o f Conc ealed Weapons Detection Technology . Suc h a ct ion could be the catalyst to a nationa l o utcry f o r p o lice use of Concealed Weap ons Detection Techn o l ogy . The Vi ct imi za ti o n o r Vulnerability Perspective of Fea r Generall y , we are all victims and vulnerable to fear o f c rime , i f no t f o r ourselves , then for our loved ones . Mothe r s o f Black youths fear crime with just cause . In 1 99 7 , t he Bureau of Justice statistics , U. S . Department of Justi ce , and the FBI ' s uniform Crime Report revealed that the young , Black , and males were the most vulnerable to viol e nt crime. The age range of 12 to years old was the most like ly , and the age of 65 years or older the least Specifically , 1 in 11 persons likel y t o b e a c rime vi c tim - of the younger age group were victims of violent crime ; compared to 1 in 227 vict ims of crime were of the older age group . The rate of murder s howed t ha t 4 9% of murder vi c tims were Black , 48 % were Ca ucasian, and 3% were Asians , Pacific Islanders , and Native American s . Moreover , 77 % of 87 he murder v ic i ms wer mr1 l l? , , i% we r e under a g e 3 5 , and 11 % were un er a 18 . Overall , th - Burec1u c1i Jt1,'t ice Stati s tics of 1997 reported tha Blacks were 111< 1, l i kely t h a n Ca ucasians to be vie ims o f robb ry nd wa s mor, ? Li ke ly than Ca ucasians to be victims of g r vale as~aul t Th e vi c timiza t ion rates for rape and sexual ss ul L wc 1 (' not signifi c an t ly different amon Bla ks , Caucc1sic1 ns , or persons o f o th er races . Teenager s and youn c ul t s we r e mo r e like ly t o become v ic ims o viol n l c 1 i1nc t ha n older persons , as stated p reviously , h owev r , c1bC'uL a third o f all vi c tims of violent crime wer s 12 o l J . Almost half of all victims of v i olen e were und e r c1ce 2 5 . Th us , the instant.: s tud y hyp cthesized that v i ctimi z a t i on by race wo 1 b c1 predi c tor of forfeit of the Fo urth Ame n d m nt rj ht . The statistics showed that 53 p e r cen t of th e Bl ck R s p o nd nc s in the study who have been o r a f a mily me mber hav been v J L?Limized would forfeit their Con sti tuti o n a l righ . ?if -y-f i vr percent of all Caucasians wh o h ave been or a famlJy m mbc ha ve bee n a vi c tim o f c rime wo uld forfeit lhe i_ r Co 11s L j t utional right . Th e vict i mi zat ion b y rac r tes was 11J t significantly differe nt among the races . 88 The crimes most feared by D. C . Respondents , all committed with concealed weapons, are Murder (31%) , Burglary (19 . 1 %) , Rape (15 .4 %) , Robbery (11 . 5%) , Assault (11 . 5%) , Carjac king (7 . 7%) , and Driveby Shooting (3 . 8%) . The crimes most feared by Madison Respondents , all committed with concealed weapons , are Murder (22 . 2%) , Burglary (22 . 2 %) , Assault (16 . 7%) , Rape 11.1 %) , Robbery (11 . 1 %) , Carjac king (11 . 1%) , and Driveby Shooting (5 . 6%) . The instant study further hypothesized , based on the research of fear of crime studies , that victimization would be a predictor of forfeiture of a Fourth Amendment right . The instant study predicted that Respondents who had been victimized or who had a fami l y member victimized would forfeit their Constitutional right more often than Respon Td o en rets i tew rh ao teha d never been victimized . ' social research scholars have r eported , once a person experiences being a violent crime victim, that person 157 begins to fear many types of criminal victimization . The consens us is that high fear of crime increases with prior victimi za tion158 This study does not s upport those findings . Victimization does not seem to increases fear in the Respondents in this study . At l east not in the sense that victimization would cause one to more readily forfeit their 89 Cons itu ional righ or ('r) 11<-?' iled Weapons Detection Technology . Th Respon 11 t s ,? r10 have not been a victim of any crime re jus as likel')' ,,1 slightly more like ly (64 %) to forfeit their four h Am 11cir11ent right than those Respondents wh o w re vicurni::,.,cl (60 %) by at least one crime . However , wi hin ? h ca Lcgury of victimization , those who h ave been vie imiz d 0 1 hacl family members victimized are more likely o orf iL th i r Constitutional right . The instant study indica es th 21 ? c:q Jproximately 60 percent of all Madison and D. c . R sponc L' iil 3 who have been victims of at least one c ime woul ?0 1J ci: their Const ituti onal right for Concealed We po s D t cLion Technology . forty percent would not forfeit th ir o sLj ? utional right for police officer use of the new CWDT . F'or all Madison and D. C . Respondents who h av not b n vic tim of at least o ne crime , approximat ly 6~ ere nl wou ld forfeit their Constitutional ri ht r Con ceal ed Weapons Detection Technol ogy . Moreover , wilh f mily m , b r victimization , thirty-one percent of all Maison nd D. C . Responde n ts have at least o ne family me mber who h s b n a victim of crime . Approximately 55 c r of Ll10 .se Madison and D. C . Respondents whose f mil y m mb , s have been victims of crime n would forfeit their Constitu ti o nal right . Forty- five p rcent of he Madison and D. C . Respondents wh o have a family member a victim of crime would not forfeit thei r Constitutional right to promote the use of the n e w Concea led Weapons Detection Techn ology . An individual having been or having a fa mil y me mber wh o has been a victim of crime wo uld be more likely t o voluntarily to forfeit a Cons tituti o nal right . As stated previously , the Bureau of Justice Statistics of 1 99 7 indicated that persons from households with lower incomes were more vulnerable to violent crime than those f rom higher income households . Persons with household incomes of less than $15 , 000 per year h a d significantly hig her violent crime rates for the category of total violent crime and robbery when compared with th ose who had household incomes of $15 , 000 or more per year . As might be expec ted , 1997 statistics revealed that minorities , urba n dwellers , and those who rent their homes experienced the highest rates of property crime . The impact of income varied , depending on the type of property crime. Lower i n come households were more likely to experience burglaries than were higher income households - In contras t , higher income households were the likel i est t o b e victimized by theft . 91 The in s ta n t st udy r esu l t s ref l ect that h i gher income Res po nd e nt s s e e m to s uffer mo r e misdemeanor crime (65 %) as oppo sed to felo n y crimes (35 %) . The same can b e s aid f o r the l ower income Resp ondents , however, even a higher pe r centage of t he l ower income Re spondent s have b een vi c tims o f misdemea no r c rime s (80 %) t ha n have the higher income Responde nts . Th e study reflected overall that the h igh income Re spondents represented 76 %, and the low income Resp onden t s rep re s e n ted 2 4% in the s tudy . Th e instant st ud y hypothesi zed income as a predicto r of forfeit u re of the Fourth Amendment right . Specifica ll y , the instant study predicted low-income Res p onde nts would forfeit their constit u t i onal rights more o ft e n than high to middle class income Respondents . The s t udy f ound that approximately 63 percent of the Madison and D. C . Re spondents of the high to middl e income bracket havi ng income o f $30 , 000 or higher would forfeit their Const i? tut ion a l right t o promote t h e use o f th e ne w Sixty-Seven Co nceal e d We apons Detection Techno l ogy . pe r c ent (67 %) of all Madison and o . c . l ow-income Respondents having income l ess than $30 , 000 would forfeit their Constit tl tional right to promote the use of the new Conce aled weapo ns Detection Technology . These findings in the study are support . ed by t p dr e ? vio 1su 9s s u ies . 92 Populations Re p o rt e d t o Suffer Vi c timizati o n Ce rtain group s of t h e populat i on are specifi c al ly vuln e r a bl e to victimizat i on , and alt e rnativ e ly, to greater Co n se q ue ntly , p opu la t i on f se a thr ao t f fc er ai rm e cr. ime have be e n iden tif i e d as t h e mo s t vu l nerabl e and vic timized . Social scientists h ave identified many c ommunities r a nking h i g h in crime f ea r vi c timization/vulnerability . The Elde rly Population Th e e lde rly p opulatio n has been ide ntified as ranking h igh i n t h e c r i me f e ar c ategory ; it is the population In fact , the elderly have repo r ted t o fea r c rime the most. been rep orted to be more fearful than younger This study does not support t i hn od siv e i d fiu na dl is n1 g60 s. , p e r se , h o wever , when the Respondents by age are divide d int o o n l y tw o age groups , the f i? n d.i ngs are th a t th e e lder f e ar c r i me mor e than younger Respondents. A c rime - spe cific study161 on fear of assault between t h e e lde rly was conducted u sing s ubj ects from the 1974 Nati o nal Opinion Research center Ge nera l Socia l Survey . An analy s is of data tested t h e relationship of age and other d e mographic variables to fear of crime , and found several The study repo rted that stro ng pre d ic t o rs o f c rime fear . Pre di c t o rs o f fear of crime in combination were age , sex , a nd 162area of residence . 93 The study fu rthe r reported that a significantly greater percentage of Res p ondents aged 60 or o lder expressed fear about wa lking alone at night in their 40 - 59 year-old women I neighborhoods than did middle-aged , 163 or younger , 18-39 year -old-women Respondents . The inS t ant study reports t h e age range 60 to 84 the least fearful of being a v ictim of crime . The study suggested that solutions to diminishing the fears of the e lderly were decreasing the incidence of st reet c rime , providing the elderly with additional security through demand-responsive transportation , and increasing street lighting , pedestrian alarm boxes , 164 neighborhood buddy systems , and escort services . Women as a Population Women are another population that ranks high in crime Wom fe enar ' s. fear of crime has become a focal point of social policy and application by Federal , State , and Local Governments , law enforcement offices , higher learning In numerou s studies , institutions a nd feminist groups . ' women we re reported to be more fearf u l than men are16s _ One study1 66 found women almost 3 . 5 t i? mes as l i? k e l Y as men t o 1 report fee ling " very unsafe " if alone on their neighborh ood However , one study reported s ot fr eet at night1 67 . Respondents in general when asked by t h e General Social 94 Survey whether they were afraid to walk alone at night 168 a w mi ilh ei n o f their homes, 4 7% sa id they were afraid . This study also reported that of all Respondents in (55 %) were more lik we el ry e than men t (h 4e 5 %s ) tudy women Mo reover , in the cat e gory within to express fear of cr ime . Women , 68 % reported fear o f cr ime, and w.i thin Men, 56 % reported fear of crime . Anot her study169 ide ntified specific crimes that worry The study reported that women worry most women and men . about rape , burglary , and vehicle c rime , while men are most concern e d about burglary and ve h i? cle c ri?m e , h o wever , any d'f ferences based o n g e nder , 1 o r age were not signifi c ant for all c rime s , Stanko 1995 . On e study describes women ' s fear of crime as " located within gender-structured societies and as indicative of wome n ' s anxiety about their vulnerability to men's This s v ti uo dle yn c re e1 p7 o0 r,, t ed that women ' s fear of crime is actually fueled by traditional crime prevention campaigns , and the popular belief that violence is random Moreover , a second study a nd committed by strangers . reported that crime prevention programs place t he responsibi lity for avoiding victimization directly on the shoulder of individual women , and , that the same prevention Programs ignore the potential of violence toward women from 95 mal e ac quai? ntances and relatives , b oth i n s ide and o utside of the woman , s home 1n . However , feminist - i n spired crime control campaigns attempt to ease the b u rden of wome n ' s exper i e n ces a nd fear of violence by placing the respon s ibility for male violence Albeit , academi cians on men , a n d o n societ y as aw h o 1 e 1n . suggest that women , and older people, are more likely to be overly fearful 173 , to ha ve a distorted percepti on of their likelihood of victimi zation , and to take the most 174 precautions to reduce their risks ? 175 In support of these finding , a study survey found the percentage of Resp ondents expressing " high fear " to b e highest for women . women expressed 23 .5 p ercent of high fear , which was substant ia lly greater than me n wh o expressed only a 9 _3 percent fear of cr ime were . Contrary to these studies , neve rthel e ss , a recent study reported a paradoxically empirical finding of fearful T 17 h6 is study found a sma l l but men , and fe arless women ? statistically significant difference between fear rates expressed by me n and wome n . A further study177 analyzed how women in the Unit ed states perceive the threat of crime in their everyday lives and ho Thi s w t hat perception cont rols t h ei. r b e h avi? or 17s . The study study f ocused o n diverse groups o f women . 96 demonstrated h o w women ' s fear of crime perpetuates gender inequalities and contributes to the social control of wome n , i n particular , poor Blac k and Latino women . The s t udy i n t imated that this control is maintained by keeping th e s e g roups of women i? n s u b servi? en t an d se lf - 1 i?m i? t?i ng This study further report 1 e79 d that the s ocial p o si ti o ns . mo r e insec urity in anyone ' s life , generally , the mor e they are of cr ime f , ea vr iofu lel n ce , and victimization . Howe ver , insecurities in o ne ' s life psycho logical ly create fears , J? ustified or unjustified . suggested an approach toward Another st udy1 so , This approach confront i? ng women ' s fear o f violence . recommended good street ligh ting , good a nd safe tran sp ort at i. o n , we ll-inve sti.g ated a nd adequate child care , decent education to help rationalize fear , security safe ho us e s , and safe interpersonal a nd b usiness relat i ons hips . 1s1 This study ref l ects t hat t h e use of the DT n be yw cw police o ffi cers on p ubli c streets because o f the alleged capabil i ties woul d f ur th er secure a sens e o f safety f especial l y women . or i. ndi. viduals , Neverthel es s al l in al l, t he studi es research ed for ' study reve th ai l s con sisten t l y cont radictory facts --men are the most often attac ked , however , wome n are s upposedl y t h e Th e e l der not t h e you t h are t he most most fearful is 2. 97 fearful of victimizati o n , depending on which study you Fear r he aa sd . n ot decreased as the crime surveys report . in a Genera l social surveys it was r I en p of ra tc et d that , i nd ividuals were afraid to walk alone in places near their at night , and h io nm e 1 994 , asked t he same question by the same survey , even a highe r percent , 47 %, reported being afraid to walk alone . The Racia l and Ethnic Minorities as a Population Racial and ethnic minorities are another population identl'fi? ed as ranking high in the crime f ear category. e is em Th pe ir r ica? l evidence to support findi n gs that racial (as well as poor , and urban a nd ethni? c minorities residents) are more fearful of crime than are members of studies report that these sociodemographic ot her groups1s3 . characteristics represent greater social vulnerability to crime fear1s4 . One study1ss found a higher crime fear percentage rate for Hispanics than for Blacks , or for Caucas i a n s . The study reported that Hispan i cs had 58 . 9 percen t crime fear , Whereas Blacks had 44_4 percen t crime fear , a n d Caucasians In contradiction to previous had 32 percent crime fear . studi? es repo rting on age , high fear of crime , ethnically speaki?n g was more common among younger Re spon d ent s ranging 98 i n he age of 18 to 3 4 and less common among the older 186 Respondents 65 or older ? The instant study revealed ethnically speaking that the younger Black Respondents aged 18 to 30 were mo re /less fearful of cr ime than among the older Respondents over 65 years of age and o lder . However , of al l Respondents Ca ucasia ns (56 %) were more like to express fear of crime tha n Blac k Respondents (44%) report fear . With in the groups of race , however , SO% of the Black Respondents report fear of crime , while 47% Caucasians report fear . Other Populations One stucty187 found that Respondents who watch l ocal new s o n tel e vision at least seven t imes a week were almost twice as likely to express high fear as those who do not watch l oca l news at all were. Th e result s were 18.7 percent for those who watch television news at least 7 times a week , and 9 . 7 percent for those who did not . These study results coincide with the studies t hat find perception of crime from the mass media is just as intimidating as actually knowing crime firsthand . Th e study did not test th l? s variable. Social Scient ists Differing Opinions on Fear of Crime It appears that criminologists , sociologists , and even Psychologists have differing opinions about crime , and 99 victimization or fear of crime 188 . Some beli eve that society to ay is no more vic lent than previous generations , whil e others believe hac i is the high-profile cases that have made the public overly sensitive to cr ime . Consequently , numerous st udjes have been conducted to explore many possibl e relationships between victimization experiences and fear levels . To fa ci litat e theses ujies , models have been construct ed to measure fear J f crime as an indicator of the impact of crime on societ y . From these models , many op in ions have been fo med as to wh o fears crimes , why these particular people or communi:ies fea r crime , what crimes are feared , and why th ese crimes are feared . Results of studies have found tha t socio-psychological factors of violence play a role in ans weri n g t hese quest i o n s . To that end , one scholar suggested that beca u se violent victimization is o ften traumatic , that trauma may 189 aggrandize a greater " s ill ove r effect " of crime fear ? Thus , another explanation for one ' s commitment to fear of c rime . Crime-Fear Relati o nship The fear of crime liter t ure does not share a consensus o n t h e degre e to whi c h crime a nd fear of cr ime are linked . Ho wever , o n e J~udy does h ypot hes i ze that some 100 types of crime or victimization are more closely linked to fear than are others , and specificity should be used in 190 testing the Ce of nf ce ec pt tus a lo lf y c ar nim d e on fear . operationally , literature views fear as a multidimensional That i c so n tc oe p st a. y , E.?? .pirical work has shown that there are cognitive and emotional components of fear, as 191 well as etiologica l differences . Recent Developments in t h e Fear of Crime Literature Scholars have been led to generalize that fear is a multidimensional concept ; that there are various dimensions of the concept of fear , a nd components of fear that need to be theoretically and empiricall y distinguished , specifically a cognitive or risk perception component , and an T he em vot ai lo un e o or f being afraid compone nt . examining crime-specifi c fears ha s been established in fear comparisons of the mul tidime o nf sic ori nm ale literature . nature of fear of crime have included mul tilevel models of the fear of viole n ce versus t h e fear of burglary , with a specific focus on the crime-fear relationship for each type of fear . In support of the multidimensional nature of fear of crime , one study192, found experiences from individual and neighborhood cr ime had differential effects on fear of ? 193 This study violence compared to fear of burglary ? 101 at cognitive and e motional components further s uggested th ally distinguished , need to be theoretica l ly and empiric ionship between crime and fear should be that the relat amined in relation to the effects of violent versus ex ffects of crime on fear of e Property cr ime on fear and 194 his violence vers u s fear of b urglary ? In other words , t st that c rime-specific oppo rt unity played a udy esp o uses role in producing fear. sponse to Cr ime and Fear o f Crime Behavioral Re aga in, people being people , they respond in On ce f cr ime . Some may avoid different ways to crime an d fear o r times ; some may purchase la Particular places at part icu d tective e quipme nt such as burglar alarm systems , an Pro neighborhood crime watch form deadbolt locks ; some may cr ime ; some may modify th eir groups or coal itions again st ge their daily routines and lifesty l es ; and some may chan living arrangeme nts, and m ode or method of e sportation195 ? Whil e for oth er persons , however , crim tran discernible impact on the ir and fear of crime may have no . 19 6 ,, " aff . r " behavior ? Othe r literat ure ec tive states ," o fferent describes the same behavi oral reactions in di countries . 102 Wh a t Wo rries U. S . Urban Life Communi ties Th e t wo most authoritative sources on crime in the 197 Uni ted States , which provide es timat es of the extent of c rime , revealed that the greater preva lence of serious cri.m e i. s f oun d i. n ur b an areas 198 . Urban r esid e nt s in the Unit e d Stat e s realize t hat crime is a fact. Their typical reactions to fear of crime include avoidance b e havior, protective actions , changes in routine activity patterns and lifestyle , a nd participation in coll ective crime preventi, o n acti? on 1 99 . Ho wever , although urban residents are at higher risk of crime , it is not neces sari ly the case t hat th is leads directly to urban residents having greater f ear2 0 0 . It is reported that ma ny urban residents become desensitized to the ex istence of cr ime , so that crime does not res ul t in a total withdrawal f r om, a nd rejection of urban l ? f 201 1 e . The statistics in the present study report o therwise . The inner-city residents who fear crime victimization are 67 . 9 percent , the Respondents wh o live in the suburbs wh o fear crime are 25 percent , and rural reside nts who fear victimization are 7 . 1 p ercent. The publi c ' s concern abou t crime has ca used national attention , especially since September 11, 2 001 . Numerous articles have b een writt e n whi c h indicate that , as i n other 103 countries , th e publi c takes a more complex view of crime t h an the p o l it i ca l a 2r 02ena estimated . It appears that s imple so luti o n s su c h a s just adding brighter streetlights wo u ld not s u ff i ce . On e study203 reported that protect i ve measures such as i mproved street lighting did no t redu ce crime , t hat t h e o v e rall c rime pattern did not change signifi c antly with the addition of brighter street lights 204 . Another study2? 5 , intimated that the r e pre s e ntation o f fear of crime " is a product of the way it 206 has bee n researched , rather than the way it is ." One might interpret this statement to mean that the survey results d e pended upon how one mi ght phrase the quest i ons a nd ana ly ze the r e s ult s. such may be said of the present study . The " hype " of the new CWDT surely plays a persuasive role in the majority accepta nce by the Respondents in the study . The " hype " of the n e w CWDT in the study could be inferred to persuade like wise the ge neral publi c at large . Nevertheless , give n t he majority ' s a ccept a n ce for the new CWDT and their volun tary forfei ture of their Constitutional right , specifically the ultimate right covered by the Fourth Amendment to t h e Constitution o f the United States , " hype " or no " hype ," for the immediate u se of t hi s new CWDT by police off i cers , the study presents a very persuasive 104 argument and factual evidence that the public a t large is greatly co ncerned about crime 2nd is wil l ing to win the figh against crime and terrorjsm at practically any civic cost. This study strongly d mon~trates the public ' s concern , even before September 11 , 2001 , about crime and the vulnerability of the public to crime . This study further strongly demonstrates the r adiness of the public at large for revolutionary solutions . The study c learly evidences that the majority of the Respondents in the study would voluntarily forfeit a Constitutional right just to permit police officer us e of he n e w CWDT . Despite the " hype " of the new CWDT , the Responden s ' Jpi ni ons and beliefs in the study may be revalidated as legitimate and factual . C . Changes in Society as a Res1lt of Concealed Weapons Current Crime Sta is ics Overall , violent vie imiz :ion includes rape , sexual assault , robbery , aggravated as3ault , and simple assa ult . The National Crime Victimization Survey changes of 1 997 - 1998 with Trends of 1993-1998 report that violent crime rates have declined 7 % and pro perty crime rates fel l 12 %. The Survey reported that th se L998 rates are t h e lowest recorded since the survey ' s in ception in 1973 . The overall decline in violent c rim r sulted from a slight yet s i gnificant decline in aggravated assault rates . However , 10 5 no significant c hanges occurred in the rates of rape or sexual assault T, h e ro nb ub me br ey r, oo fr s impl e assault . murders dropped about 8 %. As stated previously , t hese crimes are a mo ng the most feared by the Responde nts of this study . Between 19 93 a nd 1998 , every major type of crime is reported by the National Crime Victimization Survey to have decrea Tse hed . major crimes included rape or sexual assault , robbery , aggravated assault, simple assault , burglary , theft , and motor vehicle theft . It has b een r eported that for virtual ly every demographic category considered in the National crime Victimization Survey , violent victimization decreased between 199 3 and 1998 , that male and female violent victimization rates fell 32 %, and Black violent victimization rates fell 42 %. In addition , property crime rates across all demographic groups also Specifically , pro d pe ec rl ti yn e cd r. i me rates declined 33 % for Caucasian , Black , urban , and Suburban households . The Nationa l crime Victimization Survey reported that mal es were victimized at significantly higher rates than females , and Blacks were victimized at somewhat higher Non-Hispanics and Hispanics were rates than Caucasians . In about a fourth of victimized at about the same rate . Violent victimizations , offenders used a weapon ; 4 out of 106 aced a perpetrator with a weapon; and 1 l O robbe ry victims f coerced with a in 10 r ape o r s e xual assa ult victims were wea p o n 207. yc h o logical Reactions to C riminal Victimization Ps udy c onducted by Miethe in 1995 described the A s t and correlates of fear o f t nature of crime , a nd the e xten ypical reactions to crime were identified vi c timi zati o n . T vior ; protective actions ; in the study : avoidance b eha d ge s in routine activity p atterns and lifestyle ; an chan he icipation in collective cr ime prevention action . T Part s ure to risk of crime does st udy concluded that greater expo 208 to the ot lead directly to greate r fear . Neverthel ess , n onal contrary , fear of crime is an important additi ? 9 red ? eople ' s crime prevention a tti?t u d es 20 . P ictor of p Crime , Statistics , and Co ncealed Weapons questions whether or not t he devastation of This study nt crimes committed with c oncealed weapons , namely , viole lic is an important factor in firearms on the general pu b nal right . influencing voluntary forf eiture of a Constitutio ational Crime Victimization Survey (hereinaft er The N t NCVS " ) in 1998 reported th a sometimes referred to as t he " ictims of of t he 2 . 9 million violen t crimes , 670 , 000 v , namely , rape and sexual assault , serious violent crimes at they faced an robbery , and aggravated as sault , stated th 107 offender with a handgun . Victimization s involving a concealed weapon represented 23% of the 2 . 9 milli on violent crimes of rape and sexual assault , robbery , and aggravated assau l t . The FBI estimated that 68 % of the 18 , 209 mu rders in 1997 O fw te hr ee vco icm tim mit st ed o f with firearms . nonfatal violent crime who faced an assailant armed with a firea rm, 3 % suffered gunshot wounds in 1997. Another estimated 57 , 500 nonfatal gunshot wounds from assaults were treated in hospital e mergency rooms from June 1992 , through May 19 93 . Offenders arrested carrying a weapon were predominantly m Ta hl ie s, age 18 or over , and Caucasian . racial statistic is extremely contradictory to who the mass media depicts as the primary concealed-gun offender . Black , mal e , 18 and over individuals are predominately stigmatized by the mass media as the " real " concealed-gun offenders . Contradictory to the fact that Caucasian , male , and 18 or over were the demographics most likely to be carrying a concealed gun or weapon , weapons arrest rates per 100 , 000 population are highest for teens and for Blacks . Arrests of juveniles compris e an increasing proportion of weapons arrests . According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics , November 1995 , arrests of juveniles compris e an increasing 108 Weapons offenders are p roportion of weapons arrests . ma kin g up a n i. ncre asi.n g proportion of admission to State From 1985 to 1992 , n td h e rate of a Federal pris o n s . i n crease i n a dmissions o f weapons offenders was 4 times greater t h a n t h e rate of increase of drug offenders , al ug h t h m0 an y mo r e o ffenders are admitted to Federal priso n fo r drug o ff e ns e s than for weapons o ff enses , Statistics on gun possession and how offenders obt ai? ne d them were reported in a 1991 Survey of State p ' Of the inmates who po ssessed a handgun r ison Inma tes 210 9% had acquired it through theft, Prior t 0 i? nc arcerati.o n , and 28 g..o had acquired it through an i? 11 ega l market such as a drug d e aler or " fence ," 10 % had stolen it (at least one gun) , and 11 % had so ld or traded stolen guns . Availability of concea led weapons . 211 t th t t e .S . Departme T nh t of Justice repor s a s olen U Th e FBI ' s stolen guns are rea d i' l y availab l e t o er i?mi?nals ? file contain gu s ns o' v er 2 million reports ; 60% are reports In 1994 , the Bureau of Alcohol , of st 0 l en handguns . (hereinafter sometimes referred to as Tobac co and Firearms "ATF") reported t hat over three quarters o f t h e 85 , 132 guns traced by the ATF were handguns , most ly pistols , a nd almost surveys of inmates a th ird were less than 3 years old . show that the con cea led weapon of choice was a handgun , and 109 th e i T ? n h m e a jt ues v ep nr ie lef er large caliber guns. inmates are more likely to possess guns than are adults . In 1995 the Bureau of Justice Statistics further report that the kind of gun most frequently used in murders is large caliber revolvers , and the number of large ca liber semiautomatic guns us e d in murders is increasing . Handguns, Concealed Weapon of Choice in Violent Crime A handgun is gen e rally described by the NCVS as a weapon desig n e d to fire a small projectile from one or more barrels , when held in one hand and having a short stock d esi.g ned to be gripped by one hand . A handgun could be a revolver, a pistol , a semiautomatic pistol , or a derringer . The NCVS reports generally indicate that handguns are most o ften the types of concealed firearm used in committing c rimes. Th e Federal Bureau of Investigation's (hereinafter sometimes referred to as t he " FBI " ) Supplemental Homicide Reports show that in 1993 , 57% of all murders were committed with handguns , 3% wit h rifles , 5% with shotguns , and 5% with firearms where the type was unknown . Furthermore , the survey 1 9 o9 f1 State Prison Inmates found that violent inmates who used a weapon were more likely to use a handgun than any other weapon. Of all violent inmates , 24% reported that they used a handgun . Of all 110 inmates i' n tota l, 13 ~? repor t e d carryi?n g a concea l e d weapon, a handgun , when they committed the offen se for which they were serving time . The NCVS reports that 25% of t he victims of rape and sexual assault , robbery , and aggravated assault in 199 3 faced an offender armed with a handgun . Of all the firearm-related crime reported to the survey, 86% involved a Oh na e nd reg su en a. rch study conducted by Wright and Rossi in 1980 found that most crimina ls prefer guns that are easi? ly concealable , large caliber , and well made . The report also sta ted that t he handguns used by the felons interviewed were similar to the handguns available to th e general public , only the larger ca liber versions. Th e gun availability in the United States is astronomical . According to the ATF , it is estimated that from 1 899 to 1993 about 223 million guns became available in the United States , including over 79 million rifles , 77 Since 1973 , even mill i' on handguns and 66 million s hotguns . mor e handguns have been produce d in the United States--over 4o million . The number of new handguns added in 1993 to th0 se available , more than half of the guns were handguns . The Unit ed states are responsible for producing over The guns mad e 80% f 0 the guns available in the Na t.i on . available in the United states from 1973 to 1993 include 111 6 ? 6 mi'1 1 i' on . 357 Magnum revolvers , 6 . 5 million . 38 Special 5 .4 mill r ie ov no lv . 2e 2r s c , a liber pistols , 5 . 3 mi l li on . 22 caliber revolvers , 4 . 5 million . 25 caliber pistols , and 3.1 million 9 millimeter pistols . All of these weapon s are potentially dangerous concealed weapons t o be used in t h e commi? ssi?o n of crimes of violence . Any of these guns could be easily detected by the new CWOT b efore cr imes of violen ce were committed . Over a quarter of all of the victims of i ntentional 4 Perhaps gunsho t wounds were Black males , age 1 5 to 2 . th'i s fa c t is the reason for the mi sconception that Bl ack males carry concealed weapo n s more o f t en th a n Ca ucas i? an m Ha ole ws e. v er , most vict ims of repor t ed unintent i onal firearm?i nJ? ury and suicide attemp t s wi' th f'i re arms were The centers for Disease Con tro l a nd Preve C na tu ioc nas ian. (here i. na f ter sometimes refer r e d t o as " CDC" ) 2 1 2 reporte d that the percent of victims of non fata l guns hot wo unds from 1 5% ; Hisp 5 a2 n% ic; C c ar ui cm ae s ian ma l e , were : Blac k ma l e , male , 13 %; Blac k fema l e , 6%; caucas ian f e ma l e , 4%; Other 1%; Other fema l e , 1 %; a nd male ' 3015 ; Hispanic female , Unk 5n %o . w Tn he CDC r eports that i ts , d a t a o f f irearm homici? de data i ndicates t ha t demograp h i? c p a tt erns a mong Viet?i ms from crime are similar , compared to two ot her 11 2 sources , th e Vital Statistics and the FBI ' s Supplementary Homicide Re or ts. For e xample , Black males are the most frequent victims of f ire arm homicide , and nonfatal firearm injury from crime ; yo ung people are more frequently victims in all t h ree source s ; and older victims are more frequent in the homicid e stat isti c s since , the CDC presumes , they are less a b le th a n yo unger victims to recover from gunshot wounds. Of th e victims of firearm h omi cid e in c luded in the Supp leme nt a ry Homicide Reports from June 1992 through May 1 993 , handguns killed 83 % of the victims . Of these firearm h o mi c ide victims , 2 9% were killed because of an argument , 21% were killed during the commission of another crime , in c luding 11 % during a robbery and 7% during a drug law vi o lation , and 6% died as a result of a juvenile gang killing . The CDC provided information as to wh e r e the a ssaults that resulted in nonfata l gunshot wounds occurred . The CDC study found that the l ocation of the assault was unkn o wn for more than half the injuries . However a street o r highway was the location for 18 %, a home , apartment , or condominium in 1 6%, and other property , including schools o r r e creation areas in 13 %. The report indicated that 83 % of t h e cases did not occur when the victim was on the job . Th e term "drive -by" was us ed to describe what happened to 11 3 12 % of the victims of nonfatal gunshot injury from In about a 6s 0s %au ol ft s t. h e victims of gunshot wounds for l987 through 1992 , the NCVS reported that strangers victimized t hem. An ot h er quar t er repor t e d th a t t h ey were victimized by an acqua.i nta nce. The Survey o f Inmates in State Correctional Facilities found that of the almost 328 , 000 State prison inmates serving time for a violent crime in 1991 , 30% were armed with a f'i rearm when they committed the crime . Of those ' a ar m se ad i d that 5 t6 h0 e y fired the gun and most of those who f'i red the gun , said their victims shot were either wounded or killed . Prevalence of Handgun use in Violent Crime The National crime victimization survey reports that almost 43.6 million criminal victimizations occurred in Th 1 i9 s9 3 f. i gure includes 4 . 4 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault , robbery , and aggravated assault , a nd of the victims of these vio l ent crimes , 1 . 3 million , 29 ? ' stated that they faced an offender with a firearm . 0 Moreover , in 19 , the FBI ' s crime in the United States 93 e st i mat ed that almost 2 million violent crimes of murder , robb ery , rape , and aggravated assault wer e reported to the Police by citizens and of these crimes , 582 , 000 reported , 114 mu r ,d e rr os b e rib es , and aggravated assaults committed with f i rearms . It was reported that murder was the crime that most in fr e qu e ntly involved firearms--70 % of the 2 4, 526 murders There is definitely a 19 93 we r e committed with firearms . need to ri? d t he streets of firearms . Police Office rs Injured in Assau l ts with Concealed Gun s 213 The FBI , Uniform Crime Report , reported that in 1993 , o v e r 1 , 400 police officers were injured in firearm assault sand 67 police off icers were ki? 11 e d b Ya firearm The firearm injury rate for wh i? le responding to a crime . police officers declined in the early 1980 ' s and began climbing again after 1987 . However , rates in the 1990 ' s have no t exceeded the peak reached in 19 8 0-81 . The Respondents ' responses to the study survey indicate respect The instant study survey and concern for police officers . (93 %) for Respondents to results soh w that a major reason forfeit a Constitutional right is to protect law e nfor cement officers from harm cause d b Y concea 1 ed weapons. Federal law regulates the importation , manufacture , a nd distribution of firearms ; bans certain firearms such as mach?i ne guns and semiautomatic assau l t weapons ; and Prohibits the sale of some firearms to restricted classes From of people , including convicted felons and juve nil es . 115 the number of arrests for weapo 1 n9 s7 4 o ft fo e n1 s9 e9 s3 , whil e the total number of arre i sn tc sr e fa os re d 5 a4 l% l , The proportion of all arrests that crimes increased 55% . were for weapons offenses remained constant during the p eriod . The number of violent offenses (murders , robber?i es , and aggravated assaults) committed with a The FBI ' s Crime in the United firear m i? ncreased 78 %. states for 1993 estimated that state and local law enforc e ment agencies made 260 , 300 arrests in which a Granting the weap ons offense was the most serious charge . autho ri?t y to law officers to use the new CWDT to confiscate illegal weapons and contraband from offenders could be a capable met hod of ensuring potentially a d rasti? c lowering of the National crime rate . Citizen ' s Power to pass a New Concealed Weapons Detection Technology Law The survey questionnaire appended to this study inquired of the Respondents , "In your opi? ni?o n , if using th is new Concealed weapons Detection Tee h no 1 ogy does not Violat e the privacy rights of indivi. d ua 1 s , wh o d o you believ se h ould have control 0 ver when , where , and how it [ Cone ea 1 ed Weapons Detection Technology] should be used : the Federal government decides it use; individual states decide its use ; individuals decide by vote , per state , or Courts decide on a case -By-case Basis , if the issue is 116 One of the most frequent responses (3 3%) wa s adjudicated ." that ind?i vi. duals decide by vote , per state , b y referendum The Federal or ini t i? ati?v es --a self-help response . ent sh G oo uv lder n hm a ve control was the second most frequent choice b Y 3 oo~ of the Respondents . Initiatives or Referendum Recent artic l es have been written on the issues of laws be?i ng passed directly by a vote o f t h e ci? ti?z ens of the state ' or ocal jurisdiction through an 1 i ?n i? ti ?a ti.v e or Bot h initiatives and referendums are devi ces referendum . by wh ich voters ' initiate specific laws through petition , as metho ds of involving voters directly in the l eg islative popu lar referendums are often Process es of g ove rnments . us ed to amend state constitutions or pass state laws , but there i? s no provision in the consti? tuti?o n o f t h e Un?i t ed st ates for national referendums. More specifically , an initiative is a government Procedure for introducing proposed legislation by means of Public petition , and for enacting the proposal into law by Popular vote. In the practice of direct initiative , a Propo se d law , say , for instance , a law perm?i t t i? ng poli? ce Off l' eers the use of concealed weapons Detecti,o n Technol o g y , Would h ave to be supported by the minim? um num b er o f valid signatures o n a petition , and then submitted directly to 117 It becomes law if a th e electorate as a referendum . major ti hty e people vote in favor of the proposal . 0 Indirect i n? itiatives are petitions first considered by the le gi? slature . If it is rejected by the legislature, the initiative is submitted to the electorate. The referendum is the practice of submitting an issue to the p opular vote . The proposal or issue can itself b e called a referendum . In Sta t e governm e nt , th e pe ti' t'i on refere n d um ori.g.i nates with the voters and provides that a The optional proposed l aw is put to a popular vote . ref er e nd um or i? gi?n ates with a legislati?v e b o d Y w?i shing to require th at a specific majority o f t h e voters accept a Statutory and measure before it can become o ff i? ci? a 1 - ConS t ituti o nal referendums are also required in some governments as a part of the procedures through which certa?i n measures such as taxes and Constitutional amendm e nts become valid . As an example , perm?i tti.n g the use of c o ncea led weapons Detection Technology by police rs may be considere o dff i ance infringement upon a citizen ' s Const?i tutional right to be free from unreasonable search ands ei. zure . consequently , a new law may be possible thr ough a State initiative or a state Constitutional referendum 118 Consequ e ntly , if this new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology i. s considere d an unreasonable search and seiz , ur ae Fourth Amendment vio latio n of the Constitution of the United States , a t wo -thirds vo te would be required by the voters before the referendum would be passed by the State d esi. ri.n g to utilize the new concealed Weapons such referendums commonly require Detection Technology . more th aa n s imple maj or i ty for approval ; most states two-thirds majority fo r re q apu pir roe va i ng Con stitu tional The popular re a fm ere en nd dm ue mn st s a. re often u sed to ame s n td a te Constitutions or pass Sta t e laws , but there is no pr ov.i sion in the constitution of t h e United States for Albeit , for the n ew Co n cealed Nation a l r efe rendums . Weapo ns Detection Technology to become law by it referendum , would a dvi sedly have t o become i? n d 1? v1? d ual State Law , through the initiative of a state r eferendum. However , it should not be an issue whether police Offl' eers will be permitt ed to use the n e w Concealed Weapons Detect?i on Technology consider ing the supreme Court ' s ~Hou a ht- decision in A(" p'\n r2 i1 l4 of 1999 - Th e supreme Court Voted t curtai l t h e privacy rights of automobile 0 Passengers by a to ruling that a poli ce officer ma y 6 3 a p s ae sa sr ec nh g er ' s be longings , simply because the police Off l' eer suspects that the driver has don e something wrong. 119 On might quest i o n ho w this police conduct of s e arch - at - will is any d i f Bf oe tr he n st e af rr co hm e sa CWDT search . ar un e xpected a nd may b e c onsidered in vi o latio n o f a p e r son ' s exp ectati o n of persona l privacy right . In t his instanc e , the police officer had pulled over h e driver for speed i ng and having a faulty break light. Th police office r pull e d the driver over , proceeded to sea r c h the pass enge r ' s purse and f ound dru Tg hs e . Supreme Court u ph e ld the conviction of drug felony possession after t h e St a t e Supreme Court threw out the conviction . The Un i e d Sta t e s Supreme Court held that the citizen passenger h a d n o rights to forfeit , and the p o lice off i cer was p e rmitt e d t o search in a n area the citizen certainly cons i de r e d within the realm of her privacy , her purse . Pe rhaps the Unit ed States Supreme Court would rule li ke wi se were a suspicious individual stopped i n an a u omobil e and the police officer conduct ed a new CWDT sea rch o f the individual and anyone else in the car . Surely , the imputed interest of police safety to self and o h e rs would satisfy as a more legitimate search under law . Arguable Rights and Wrong s of Citizens Forfeiting Th e ir Co nstitut ional Rights Many citizens ' groups would probably oppose such p o li c e action in Ho u g hton , and the ruling by the Supreme Co urt . Nevertheless , it is now law . Poli ce officers more 120 o r l e ss have been granted almost carte blanche through the Ex c lusi o nary Rule Reform Act of 1995 , and the ruling by the Un i t e d Sates Supreme Court in Ho ughton. Cons eque ntl y , individual citizens voting by initiatives of refe rendums to i nitiate the use o f t h e new CWDT should not c aus e an outcry o f infringement by the American Civil Liberties Union (hereinafte r sometimes referred to as "ACLU ") or other such private - citizens' interest groups . A more appropriate cry by these cit i zens ' interest groups might be that new laws permitting the forfeiture of Constitutional rights would be an interference with i ndi vidual c ho ice . Although that arg ume n t might not hold much wat er e ither . The interest groups sometime s seem to lose sight of the more social and political participatory exper iments now being tried to address the rising crime problems or continuing rise in student-on-student crime , and worker-o n-worker crime. These are far wider social issues than the atypical racial c rime issue , which usually centers on race - on - ra ce crime , o r more pointedly , Bla c k-on-Black crime . One article responding to the social interests is , "When Rights Are Wrong " 2 15 . This article espouses a premise , which may address the appropriateness or inappropriateness of citizens voting into law by referendum, the right to forfeit voluntarily a 121 Constitutional r ight. That is , the right f or police officers to use th e new Concealed Weapons Det ection Technology whic h ma y be f ound t o be uncon s titutiona l . However , the que s tion of s tanding would surely a ri s e . Th e Courts could qu est ion whether these activist groups had standing regarding citizen-ini tiat ed-through-init i a tives - or - refere ndums -ne w Sta t e laws . 216 The article "Wh e n Rights Are Wrong " espouses that c iti zens ' democrati c participation is a healthy thing . The ar tic l e e ncoura ged c iti zens to exercise their right t o pre s e nt a n initiative of referendums to express how they wish to be policed . The article expresses that it would be pe rmitting the citi zenry the opportunity to unl eas h energy , optimi sm, a nd spirit in a s ense t o determine their own de stin y . Suc h unl eashing could be powerful . That same thought could apply to a CWDT initiative . The citizens of each State would be reaching their own decisions , and using their own judgment in deciding what burdens they are willing to bear to rid themselves of thei r fears of crime , and crime , itself , in our schools , in our airports , on our airplanes , a nd throughout the Nati on. The citizens could determine the fate of the ne w CWDT . In the above-referenced article , " Wh en Rights Are Wrong , " the authors reported an incident of unwanted 122 interests groups , namely the ACLU , intrusion by citizens' and a Federal District court judge . A Chi c ago Ho using Associat?i on passed an o rdinance that was s upported by the Despite majority resi'dence o f a cr i?m e - i? n f es t e d commun?i t y. th that this ordinance appeared to e bef a sc ut ccessful in decrea si.n g crime , the ACLU attac ked i t causing it to be inva1?i dated by a Federal court . The court h e ld tha t the ordi' nance was violati ng the rights of the very individuals Wh o s upported it--a Chicago community . in the Chicago situation , the Ch icago Housing Albeit ' adopted a building search p o l icy as an " e mergency Author i ty of gun fire associa t ed response to the deadly outbursts 2 P17 res uma bl y , t h e poli ce With i ncessant gang warfare ." more than 300 re c go ur nd fe id re inc i de nts in the ho u sing Project . Out of fear for t h e i r famil ies , the ma j o r ity of t he reside nts supported a policy , wh ich permitted police Offl' eers to investigate , by way of mas s bui lding searches ; reported gun s hots which emanat ed f rom t he hous i. ng project . Thi s i? nciden t between res ide nce o f the crime - r i dden area Who wanted to be free f r om fea r , a nd the AC LU and t he Federal Court created p ro f o und t e n s i on b e tween what t he Th e article described as an " indiv idual' s 1.i b e r t Y2 1s ? " artic stl ae t ed t hat t he judi c ial dec i s i o n s truc k d own an 123 o rd i nan ce that the individuals we r e attempting to create f o r se lf-pro t ec tion . Th e arti c l e r e port e d that although t h is ordin a nce was n o t considered an incident of poli ce coercion , the Court saw the ho usin g ord in a nce as depriving t he res ide nts o f t he housing pro ject of their Cons ti tuti o nal protection from unreasonable searches and sei zures . It wo uld appear t hat the Court did not take into consideration t he all-important fact that the housing residents knowingly and voluntarily permitted and reques ted this invasion of their privacy in an e ffor t t o rid their community o f gun violence . The s e are despera te measu res for desperate times . Albeit , if the Con cea led Weapons Detect ion Technology la w were to b e dependent upon another prece dent ci tizenry initiated law , specifically , the Chicago Curfew Ordinance o f 19 92 , it may never become law. Th e Chi cago curfew law was desi gn e d t o restrict kno wn gang members from con gregati ng o n street co rners and other publi c ways . Although it appears that carefull y considered guidelines accompanied th e ordinance , and i t was widely accepted by the Community , the ordinance was st ruc k do wn for arbitrary a nd , or discriminatory e nforcement . Again , it appears that a law wa s struck down , despite the fact that the o rdinance wa s reportedly successful in decreasing crime . Th e ACLU 124 won its c hallenge of the ordinance alleging that the ordinance was using a vague loitering ordinance to in imidate and harass racial minorities . Once more , the Cou t agreed wi t h the ACLU , however , and according to Mea res 219 , h e Uni ed States Supreme Court is reviewing the case . Permitting the use o f Concealed Weapons Detection Tech nology and passing State laws through initiatives and referendums might prevent the interference of well-meaning activist groups and Courts . Perhaps the sincere concern of ac tivis t groups and the Courts of over- reaching laws , in imidation and harassment of racial minorities and other overnment infringement upon the freedom of t h e rights of minority groups to mix and mingle on street corners will be alleviated after studying the us e and capabilities of the new CWDT . This new CWDT wo uld not cause any individual or group intimidating freedom of movement interference , or harassment by police officers using t h e new Concealed Weap o ns Detection Technology . This technology is nonconfrontational ; police officers would not have to confront any particular group or individual suspected of being involved in any illegal possession be it weapons or contraband . Police officers would simply search , applying 125 a jus ifiable , reasonable standard of criminal activity afoot . The potential of such a search is that it will be wil o ul risk of harm to self , t th hh e s uspect , or to e en ral public . Curfews were also a topic of interest to this study . In hat regard , t h e qu e stio ns asked of the Respondents in his st udy were whet h er the Respondent believes in curfews , a nd if so , what en tity the Respondent believes should be responsible for setting curfews : the Federal Government , Sta e Government , City Government , or Parents? One of the most requent answers was that the City Government should be responsib le for set ting Ht eh re e , c u ar gfe aw in. if necessary , t h e public could initiate a referendum to pass c urfew laws f or minors . Reportedly , more than half of the major Cities in the Unit ed States has enacted curfew legis lation . These Cities include the two Cities of interest in this study : Madison , Wisconsin , and Washington , D. C . From the results of the study , the Respondents o f th e t wo Cities support their City ' s initiated curfews . Nevertheless , curfews too have fallen victim to c itizen-group activists and Court interference . These groups are proclaiming that curfews violate children ' s rights . However , these efforts thus far have been received with mu c h less success . Albeit , with the cities already 12 6 any minor f o und on the supporting c urfews for minors, street s past curfew is in violation of the curfew law . Therefore , that minor could be searched by the new CWDT with o ut a warrant with just cause. studies on c urfews have reported findings that n o t hang j ou uv te n li al te es ad to night on the streets enjoy it so much , but rather because of peer becaus e they The social influence theory posits Pressures to do so 220 . that i? ind . viduals are more likely to commit crimes when they Perceive that either others are engaged in the crime , or they expect that a crime is to be committed . To curtail on juveniles , curfew and l oitering ordinances this effect Reportedl y , curfews and loitering have b een initiated . reinforce social organization by increasing the Ordinances supervisory authority of adults in the i. nner ci. ty . A cr ai ti ec m l p irical link between lack of supervision of teen Peer groups and juvenile delinquency and victimization has been established in studies by Samps do n an G 22r 1o ves . That is why some may find it contradictory t hat Stuct?i es like the Chicago c urfew ordinance of 1992 was struck d own for arbitrary and , or discriminatory enf orcement , even though it appears that carefull y cons?l dered guidelines accompanied the ordinance ; it was Widel Y accepted by the community ; and it was reportedly 127 successful in decre asing crime. Regardless of these positives , th e o rdinance was struck down by the Court for arbitra r y a nd , o r discriminatory enforcement 222 ? Po li ce Harassment , Intimidatio n , and Racial Profiling I t wo uld be a difficult accusation to make t hat police o ff 'ce r s ' us e of Concealed Weapo ns Detection Technology wo u ld h a rass, intimidate , or racially profil e any group of p eopl e . If police officers were permitted to use the new Con cealed Weapons Detect i o n Technology , it wou l d more like ly than not eliminate t he risk of harassme nt , intimidation , and racial profiling normally associated with aggressive order-maint e nan ce policing . The CWDT would p ose no threat of direct confrontation of a suspected individual , unless a police officer is proof positive that an individual is carrying a concealed weapon or some illega l contraba n d . Using Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would provide the police officer with proof of a weapon or contraba nd concealed o n a suspect . Th e new Co n c ealed Weapons Detection Technology as touted in the study possesses a low probab i lity of false alarms , of making a mistake . There are many pros for citizens wanting t o vote in f avor of the use of the new CWDT by po l ice officers . Eliminating any actual or potential racial profiling , or 1 28 a ccu sa t?i o n s of racial profiling is one positive proactive r eason Thi s new Concealed weapons Detection Technology would put a n end to the need for bias stops by those police off l' ee r s th a t have a tendency to target minorities . Another p o s i t i v e is t he conven i e n ce and accuracy of the A police officer could sit in hi s s qua d car new CWDT and scan search those individuals thought to be involved in criminal activity , or involved in suspicious action as the police office r ' s years of experience , or with judged by The point being made here is that as a Probabl e cause . nonintru si.v e , non confrontational proactive means of ing the public a nd police officers , as they attempt Protect ? to d their duty of keeping the p eace within the 0 commu n.i ties , the r esidents of those communities , be they law-ab ' d?i ng c itizens or suspected criminals would not be 1 stopped ' ques tioned and frisked without probable ca us e . Police o ffi cers would not need to personally harass or any citizen searched with the new CWDT . There intimidate Would not b ea need to make the citi.z en aware o f th e search if the s earch turns out negative . Such Concealed weapons oetection Technology searches Would not be considered intrusive , not if judged according In Rochin, the e st d . f . 223 to th an ard of Rochin v . ~ ? Court set the standard that to be intrusive ; it must shock 129 the The police officers in Rochin were found conscience . illegally broken into the privacy of by the Court to h a ve the suspect when they struggled to open his mouth and The police officers removed drugs , remove what was there . for e vi?d ence , by forcibly extracting his stomach contents . Ro c hin held that this act offended even h ar d e n e d sensibilities . Another standard for intrusive whi c h the new CWDT could pass was developed in a later case , Breithaupt v . 225 -A-br-a=m2 2 4 ' which was reaffirmed in a still l ater case . The Court i? n Breithaupt sustai n e d the admissibility of the results of a blood test admini stered whil e the defendant wa s unconscious in a hospital f o llowing a traffic accide nt. Here 1?i es the unexpected hospital admitt a nce di scu ssed ear1?i er in the study . The Court stated that the search wa s not int r u s ive cons?i dering the routine nature of the test and the minimal Arguably , inasmuch intrusion i. nto b odily private parts 226 as a Co ncea l ed weapon s Detection Technology search is rep orted to b e truly nonintrusive , with minimal radiation l evel whi' ch does not inva d e the body , nor di' s c l ose the bocty ? s private parts , courts would find that the search Would not shock the con sc ience of even the most timid sensib i' 1?i ty , according to case 1 a w precedence 1 3 0 it is n ow settled by the court that such Moreover ' evident?i ary items as fingerprints , blood , urine samples, fingernail and s kin scrapings , voice and handwriting , conversations , and other demonstrative evidence exemplars may be obtained through the warrant process or without a 227 war rant where special need of the government are shown ? Albeit the new CWDT would not be considered medi cally ' as ? intrusions where such circumstances have sisted bodily Consequently , it been held impermissible by the court. new Concealed would appear by all standards that the Weap ons Detection Technology search would not be considered an i? ntru sive search . 228 However , in the cases following the ruling in Weeks , the S upreme Court maintained its fundamental assumption throughout its decisions since~- That decision being , of that without the exclusionary rule, t h e course ' Protect i? on of the Fo urth Amendment is of no value to the s ubsequently , another issue was Cit?i zenry of thi' s country. raised si.n ce Weeks as to why illegal search and seizure evicte n ee should be excluded from trial . The Court clearly ied the basis for the exclusiona ry rule as the self- identif' clau se of t h e Fi fth Amendment, the amendment inc ri?m inat?i on that against compel ling self-incr imination . protects 131 it may b e argu e d t hat those Thu s ' i? n this study , concea l e d wea p o ns and ot her con t r a b a nd that cou ld be ap on s Detection Technology i dent1? Con c eal ed we f.i in a new ed searc h ma y b e in vi o lation of t he Fifth Ame ndme n t . Alth Co urt may not f ind a se l f -incr imi nation o ugh , t h e p ers ua sive , espe c ially i na s muc h as the of f e nder argume n t Was i? ng i. llegal contrab a nd or we apon r y op e n ly i n c a r ry Public Pla ce s , a nd re ga rdl e ss o f wh e ther he expect ed Neve rthel e ss , in the end , Privac Y o f person in d o ing s o . that determi n at i o n probably would have to be de c ided b y the Courts . t h e r e ha ve be e n precedent exc lusionary rule Ho wever ' apply t o the new CWDT issues , not based on ca s es that may In the se cases , the c ourt Const? 229i t u tion al g round s ? enf requ i rement t ha t arre stee s be p rompt l y pre s ented orced a t o a gistrate b y holding that inc riminating admis s i ons ma ? the period beyond a reasonable time fo r ob t a?i ned d u r ing The rule was not Pre s e nt a t?i on would be inadmissible . Nevertheless, be c ause 230 e xt e nde d t o the States however ? clause in th e Co u r t s resort to th ' e self-incrimination revi e wing confessions , such application was irre levant in ? 232 most cases in any e v e nt 23l . Howe ve r , in anothe r c as e , t he ated t hat the exc lusionary rule is c al c ulat e d t o Court st rts purpose is to deter , t o compe l Pre v e n t , n o t to repair . 132 respect for the Constitutional guaranty in the only effectively availab l e way--by removing th e incentive to disregard it . Additionally , in~' which states that when a search impermissible under the Fourth Amendment results in the seizu r e of evidence , exclusion of the fruits of that unconstituti o nal invasion is required not merely in hope of deterring unc o nstitutional searches in the futur e , but in order to vindicate the right of privacy guaranteed by t h e Fourth Amendment , the Court held that the exclusionary rule was the only effective deterrent to lawless poli ce action . Like the Fifth Amendment ' s protection against compulsory , self-incrimination , the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment stakes out boundaries beyond which the government may not tread in forcing evidence or i n formation from its citizens . Wh en coercion that surely is impermissible under the Fifth Amendment has actually produced an involuntary statement , the Court has invariably held that the fruits of that unconstitutiona l coercion also may not be used to prosecute t he individual involved for any crime 233 ? Exclusion of statements impermissibly coerced is not merely a device to deter government agents from improper condu ct in the fu ture . Exclusion of coerced testimony is the essence of the privilege against self- 133 Here , too , the term " coercion " would have incrimination . to be defined as to wh ether or not the new CWDT search would produce coerced test imony to be excluded by t he Cour t as the essence of the privilege aga inst self - This iss ue as well would have to be discrimination . decided by the Courts . Ho wever , the most severe curtailment of the exclus i onary rule came in 1984 with the adoption of th e As stated previously in Leon , the "good faith " excepti on. Co u rt created an exception for evidence obta ined as a result of off i cers ' objective , good-faith reliance on a war rant , l ate r fo und to be de fec tive , is sued by a det ach e d si nce~, and several other a nd neutral magistrate . cases 234 thereafter , the court finds it of little socia l value in applying the exclusionary rule to deter objectively reasonable law enforcement activity by p e nalizing a police officer for a magistrat e ' s error . Th e Supreme court maintains its fundamental assumption r oughout its dec i sions since Wee ks , however , that without t h the exc lusionary rule , t h e protection of the Fourth Amendment is of no value to the citizenry of this country . The new CWDT search should not offend the Court ' s idealism. The survey in this study isolated the voluntary forfeiture of one ' s Fourth Amendment right to one issue only--to 134 permi olice o ffi c ers the use of the new CWDT t o curb crime and v i o l e nce . Th e survey specified that i t would b e used for " this purpose only ." All ot her Fourth Amendme nt protection s wo uld not be violated , and would otherwise remain i nt ac t . Therefo re , under ideal conditions , the concept of t he n e w Concealed Weapons Detection Technology type - sea~ch , i . e ., hands-off , nonintrusive , nonconfrontati o nal , operated within seconds , and fr om a d i stance o f at least 12 feet s hould not bring f o rth conv inc ing Constitutional objections . This type of search migh t we ll not even be considered an infringement or an in trusio~ . Moreover , afte r the terrorist attack of Sept e mbe L 11 , 2 001 , the Country would probably well-receive this ne w technology at the cost of the l oss of some f r eedom. D. Th e House Resolution 666 Exclusionary Rule Reform Ac t Congress as well as the Co urt ' s has demonstrated soli c itude for law enforcement objectives . The House of Representatives passed House Resolution 666 (hereinafte r some times referred to as the " H. R. 666 " ) , which is seen by s ome as an erosion of the Constitution by statutory enactment . Th e H. R. 666 appears to b e reforming the exclusion a ry rule to exc lude evide nce , even if it were " poison ous frui t " obta ined with out proper legal aut hority . 135 law enforcement officer r , H.R. 666 will allow any Moreove eves permission, as l ong as he beli who collects ev idence within the auth ority of th so while actingat he is doing vidence in a Co urt th trod uce the e e Fourth Amendm ent , to in t officer's of Law . onsequently , any law enforcemen C eason to long as he has r llegally obtaine d evidence , as i the ollected within the confines of b 1 ? as c e ieve that it w be permitted to tations , will Fourt h Amendmen t limi of Law to be us ed in a Court introduce such e vidence a . gainst the accus ed . e , rightly or w rongly , Critics of the e xclusionary rul a misconception : the rs consider trumpet what oth e dangerous crimin als e regularly rele ases exclusionary rul . 3 however , in on ly 1 onto our streets . In contradiction , vidence ral criminal pro secutions was e Percent of the Fede dition , lt of an illegal search? In ad u excluded as a re s resulting from rt that c umulati ve loss numerous studies repo d 0 . 6 to 2 . 35 pe rcent of small --aro un illegal searches is 35 he great fear of advocates of 2 lony arrests ? fe Tall adult ople of ibility that the pe th os s e excl usionary r ule is the p etain one ' s pers onal th ir righ t to r is Nation will l ose the enormous intrus ion and y from the other wise Privac of our governm ent . confiscation ab ilities 136 thought that pers onal stains the Albeit , this stud y su . s, the American democra cy Thu Privacy is the b asic core of new , would the publi c consider the on ans wer to the q ue sti echnology too muc h of an Detection T Concealed Weapons according to t h e ghts , usion on the pe o ple's privacy ri intr e answer is a res ounding, urvey results of this study , th s "No ." ore the September aken bef Although this sur vey was t that if this 11 orist attacks , on e might suppose , 200 1, terr ld probably refle ct were taken today , the study wou surve y ercentage of citiz ens willing to an even greater p e urth Amendment rig ht . Thes Voluntarily forfe it their Fo rmit police offic er use hts would be forf eited only to pe rig cure public freed om from crime , of the new CWDT t o se , and to secure o nce again violence , especi ally terrorism nd to around our Nati on , a th e freedom and sec urity to move world without fe ar . travel the e predictor, the ear is th As the study refl ects , when f n and o . C. Respond ents who would st atistics of Madis o . all onstitutional rig ht do not differ Of forfeit their C me , approximatel y pondents , who fea r cri of the Madison R es Of Constitutional r ight . 71 Percent would fo rfeit their crime , approxima tely spondents , who fe ar all of the D. C . R e tutional right . Thes e ti 69 eir Co ns p e rcent would fo rfeit th 137 voluntary forfeitures we re offered to permit police officer us of the new Co ncealed Weapons Detection Technology. The st udy results reflec t that the Respondents strongly believe (82 %) that th new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology should be delivered immediately to police officers to aid them in fighting crime , violence and terrorism in the Nation . Thes e re sults were statistically significant for ENDNOTE 1 See J . Travis and W. Bratton , Travis CNN Interview , "CNN Sunday Morning , " 1997 . A January 12 , 1997 , interview was conducted by CNN Sunday Morning in which Jeremy Travis , the Director of t he National Institute of Justice , and William Bratton , former Ne w Yor k City Police Commissioner imply that crime is decreasing in the Nati o n . 2 The Chicago Curfew Ordinan ce of 199 2 , and the Chicago Housing Authority ' s attempt to adopt a building search policy are but tvo such instances of communit y endeavors to right their own vrongs within their communities . These efforts were shot down by groups like the American Civil Liberties Uni on and judicial system . The self - help issue will be discussed in furt her detail later in this study . 3 Since 1997 , 31 states initiated right to carry concealed gun ( " RTC " ) laws . The issue of initiatives and referendums is fully discussed later in this study . 5 Madison Responde nts opined 30 percent of the time that individual votes initiated by referendum , per State , should have control . Twe n ty-eight percent believed that the Federal Governme nt s h ou ld have control . Twenty- six percent stated that the State Gover nment s h ould have control . Sixteen percent i ndi cated that the Courts should have control , on a Case-By-Case Basis . 138 The D. C. Respondents opined 3 6 percent of the t i me t hat i ndi v i dual votes initiate d by referendum, per State , s ho uld have contro l . Thirty-two percent stated that the ~edera l Gove rnme nt should have control . Twelve p e rcent indicated that th e State Government should have contro l . Twe l ve p e r cent believed that the Courts should have cont rol , on a Case-By-Case Basis . Eight p e rcent o f the D. C . Res po nde n t s state d the y had no prefere nc e of wh o s hould have control . The Fourth Amendme nt of the United States Constitution 6 gua~antee s that , "Th e right of the people to be secure in the ir pers ons , houses , papers , and effe cts , agai ns t unreasonable searches a nd seizures , s hall not be violated ." 7 This rule has been held to be applicable to the states under~ v . Ohio , 367U . S . 643 , 81 s . ct . 1684 , 6 L . Ed . 2d 1081 . 8 The Fourth Amendment to the U. S . Constituti on places limits on the power of the police to make arrests , search pe opl e , and their property , and seize objects , documents , a~d c ontraband , such as illegal drugs or weapons. These limits are couched within the probable cause requirements . Cas e law identifies " probable cause " as an apparent state o f f ac t s f o und to exist upon reasonable inquiry , which wou~d induce a reasonably intel ligent , and prudent man to believe , in a criminal case , that the accused man had committed the crime charged, or , in a civil case , tha t a cause of action existed . cook v. Singer Sewing Machine Co . l38 Cal . App . 418 , 32 P . 2d TTo, 431. Reasonable grounds for bel~ef that the person s hould be arrested or searched . The police office need not necessarily possess knowledge of the facts sufficient to establish guilt, but it must be more an mere suspicion . state v. Phillips , 67 Hawaii 535 , 696 th P.2d 346 , 350 . 9 The Exclusionary Rule requi res evidence , wh ich is ai?n ed by an unreasonable search and se i zure to b e obt excluded from admissibility at the defendant ' s trial , fol l owing the Fourth Amendment . 10 The Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 . Congressional " Record (House) , February 7 - 8 , 1995 . 139 11 National Archives and Records Administration , A More Pe rfec t Uni o n : The Creation of the U. S . Constitution, March 2 6 , 1999 . 12 Id . 13 Id . 14 Id. 15 Id. 1 6 The Continental Congress is the first national legislative assembly in the Unit ed States . In 1774 , Massachusetts recomme nded t o all of t he States that one conven e . In some instances , the legislative assemblies of the States chose t h e delegates , and in ot her , the people chose them , directly . At that time , the powers of Congress were undefined , however , it took meas ures , and passed resolutions whi c h concerned the general welfare of the people . 17 Nat i onal Archives and Records Administration , A More Perfect Union : The Creation of the U. S . Constitution , Mar c h 26 , 1999 . 1 8 Writ of Assistance is essentially a mandatory injunction , the effect of which is to bring about a change in the possession of realty ; it disposes the occupant and gives possession to one adjudged entitled thereto by the court . Dusbabek v . Local Building & Loan Ass ' n ., 178 Okl . 592 , 63 P . 2d 756 , 759 . In England , a writ of assistance permitted unreasonabl e searches and seizures of its c iti zens . 19 The 10 th Article in the Amendments to the Constitution proclaims that " . . the powers not the United States or the Constitution , nor prohibited by it delegated to the States , are reserved by the States , respectively , or to the people .n The United States Constitution . 2 0 National Archives and Records Administration , A Perfect Union : The Creation of the U. S . Constitution , Mar c h 26 , 1999 . 21 Elliot ' s Debates . A Century of Lawmaking , 1774-1873 . Debates in Convention . The Debates in the Several States Convention on the Adopti on of the Federal Constitution On 140 Po we rs o f the States a nd Fe d e ral Gov e rnment s . Th e States' p o we rs we r e limit e d t h e r eto . Th e powe r to ma ke war , peace , a nd t reaties , l e vy mo ney a nd regulate commerce , a nd the co rre spo n dent executive a nd Judi c i a l auth o r ities we r e fully a nd e ffec ively vested i n t he ge neral g over nme n t of t he Uni o n . 22 Id . 23 I d . 2 4 For t hi s purpo s e o nly pertains to the use of th e ne w Co ncealed We apo ns Detection Technology by law enforceme nt o f f i c er s . In a n e ffort to combat the escalating fear of c rime and vi c timization of persons . 25 Exc lu s i o nary Ref o rm Act of 1995 , Congressional " Record (H o u se ) , February 7 - 8 , 1995 . 26 Nat i o n a l Ar c hive s and Records Administrati o n , A Mo re Per f ec t Uni o n : The Cre ation o f th e U.S . Constituti o n , March 26 , 1 999 . 27 Id . 2 8 Id . 2 9 Id . 30 Id . 31 Dusbabek v . Local Bu ilding & Loan Ass ' n ., 178 Okl . 592 , 63 P . 2d 756 , 759 . 3 2 Joseph D. Grano , Rethinking the Fo urth Amendment Warrant Requirement , American Criminal Law Rev i e w 19 (198 2 ) 62 0. 33 Braum v . Unit e d State s , 168 U. S . 532 (1987) . 34 Country of Riverside v . McLaughlin , 500 U. S . 44(19 91) . 35 Marbury v . Madison 1 Cranch 137 , 5 U. S . 137 (1803) , 2 L . Ed 60 (1803) . 36 People v . Harfmann , Colo . App . 555 P . 2d 187 , 189 . 37 People v . Carlson , Colo ., 677 P . 2d 310 , 316 . 141 38 Unit e d States v . Vargas , 16 F . 3d 155 . 160 (7 th Ci r. 1994) . 3 1 9 Ho we ll ' s State Trials 10 2 9 , 1035 , 95 Eng. Reg. 807 , 8 1 7-18 (1765) . 40 Dusbabek v . Local Building & Loan Ass'n ., 178 Okl. 592 , 63 P. 2d 75 6 , 759. 41 See , ~ .g ., Davis v . Mississippi , 3 94 U. S . 72 1 , 728 (1 969 ) ; Kat z v . United States , 389 U. S . 347 , 356-357 (1 96 7) ; James v . Louisiana , 382 U. S . 36 (1965) ; Preston v . Unit e d States , 376 U. S . 364 , 368 (1964) ; McDonald v . United States , 335 U. S . 451 , 455 - 456 (1 948) ; Ag nello v . Uni ted States , 269 U. S . 20 , 33 (1 925) . 42 See , Terry v . Ohio , 392 U. S . 1 , 16- 27 (1968) ; see Katz v . United States , supra , at 357 n . 19 and cases cited ; cf . Chambers v . Maroney , 399 U. S . 42 (1970) . 43 Terry v . Ohio , 392 U. S . 1 (1 968 ) . 44 Id ., supra , at 1 9 , quoting Wa r d e n v . Ha yde n , 387 U. S . 2 94 , 310 (1967) (concu rring opinion) . 45 California v . Hodari , 499 U. S . 62 1 (1991) . 46 Id . at 621 , 627 /47 Harris v . United States , 331 U. S . 145 (1947) . 48 United States v . Rabinowitz , 339 U. S . 56 (1950) . 49 Chimel , s up ra , at 764-765 . 50 Chimel v . Cal ifornia , 395 U. S . 75 2 (1969) . 51 In Braum , the Sup reme Co urt recognized t hat under the United States Const itution , even a unanimous vote in Congress could not alter the Bill of Right s or Constitutional procedures . 52 Exclusionary Reform Act of 1 995 , Congressional " Record (House) , February 7 - 8 , 1 995 . 14 2 5S3 See , Boyd v. United States , supra ; We e ks v. Unit e d /ate s , 232 U. S . 383 , 3 90- 394, 398 (1914) ; ~ v. Oh io , 67 U. S . 643 , 65 6 , 6 60 (1961) . -- 54 See , Desist v . United States , 394 U. S . 2 44 , 2 49- 25 0 (l969 ), and c ases cited therein . 55 Desist v . United states , supra ; Stovall v . Denno , 388 U. S ., a t 2 97- 2 99. 56 "Hi s t o ry undeniably supports the proposition that t he Frame r s opposed leaving the power to search and seize solely in e xe c utive hands ." Joseph D. Grano , Rethinking e Fou r th Amendment warrant Requirement, American Criminal th Law Review 19 (1 982) 620 . 57 Th e provision of the U.S . Constitution , Artic l e I , S. e c t?i on 8 , Clause 3 gives Congress exclusive powers over int e rstat e commerce . 58 Fuentes v . Shevin , 407 us 67 , 79 , 92 S . Ct . 1983 , 1994 , 32 L . Ed . 2d 556 . 59 Jeffries v . Turkey Run consolidated School Dist ., C. A. Ind . 492 F . 2d 1, 3 . 60 . Probable cause is said to be a judicial construct . To find probable cau se justifying the issuance of a warrant , t ~e affiant mu s t show that he had reasonable grounds at the time of his affidavit that a law was being violated on the premises to b e searched and the facts set out in the affidavit are so evid e n~ t ha t a reasonably discreet and prudent man would be led to believe t hat there was a commission o f the offense c harged . Dumbar v . Unit ed states , 268 U. S . 435 , 439 , 441 (19 25 ) - 61 The Exclusionary Rule was clarified by the Supreme ;ourt in its 1 9 14 case , wee ks v . Unit e d States , 2 32 U. S . ~3 . (19~4) , as the mean s of actual l y e n forcing the 1 imitations imposed upon t he governmen t ' s conduct by the Fourth Amendment . 62 United States v . ~ ' 468 U.S . 897 (1984) . 63 ~ v . Ohio , 367 U. S . 643 , 81 s . ct . 1684 , 6 L.Ed. 2d 1 081. 143 64 United States v . Leon , 468 U. S . 897 (1984) . The same objective ly reasonable"good-faith" rule now applies in determining whether officers obtaining warrants are entitled to qualified immunity from suit. Malley v. Briggs , 475 U. S . 335 (1986) . 6.5 . Justices Blackmun, Powell , Rehnquist, and O' Connor Joi ned by Chief Justice Burger, and t h e opinion. Justice Blackmun also added a separate concurring opinion . Di ssents were filed by J ustice Brennan , joined by Justice Marshal l , a nd by Justice Stevens . 66 4 68 U. S . at 907 . 67 4 68 U. S . at 916 - 17 . 68 4 68 U. S . at 919 , 921. 69 468 U. S . 981 ( 1984) . 70 v. Krull, 480 u . s . 340 ( 1987) . Illinois 71 . Evans , 115 s . ct . 1185. Arizona v 7"2 Article v of the U. S . Constitution states , in part , Whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it neces~ary , shall propose amendments to the United States Constitution , or on the application of the l egislatures of two-thirds of the several states , s hall call a convention for _proposing amendments , which , in either case , shall be valid for all intents and purposes , as part of this Constitution , when ratified by the l egislatures of three- fourths of the severa l states , or by convention s in three - fourths thereof as the o ne or the other mode of ratification ma~ be proposed by the Congress ; provided that no amendment which ma y be made prior to the year one thousand eight-hundred and eight." 73 Ex parte Burford , 7 U. S . (3 Cr .) 44 8 (1806) 7 4 . Giordenello v . United States , 357 U.S . 480 (1958) ; Unit e d States v . Watson , 423 U. S . 411 (1976); Payton v . New ~ ' 445 U. S . 573 (1 980) ; Steaga ld v . United States , 451 U. S . 204 (1981) . 75 United States v . Watson, 423 U.S. 411 (1976) . 144 7 However , in 1957 , the precedent set by the Cour t in Mallory v . Uni ted States , 35 4 U.S . 449 454 (1957) was t hat " the police may not arrest upon me re suspici on bu t only o n probable cause ." 77 Stop and Frisk , United States v . Wats on , 423 U. S . 411 (1976) , Henry v . United States , 361 U.S. 98 (1959), Johnson v . United States , 333 U. S . 10 , (1948) , Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S . 40 (1968) , Mallory v . United States , 354 U. S . 449 (1 957) , United States v . Cortez , 44 9 U. S . 411 (1981 ) , Alabama v . White, 4 96 U. S . 325 (199 0) , Davis v . Mississippi , 394 U.S . 72 1 (1969) , Dunaway v . New York , 442 U. S . 2 00 (1979) , United States v . Mendenhall , 446 U.S. 544 (1980) , Florida v . Royer , 460 U. S . 491 (1983) , INS v . Delgado , 466 U.S . 210 (1984) , Mi c higan v . Chesternut , 486 U. S . 567 (1988) , United States v . Sharpe , 470 U. S . 675 ( 198 5) . 78 See , for exampl e in Almeida-Sanchez v . United States , 413 U. S.266 (1973) . Justices Stewart , Douglas , Brennan , Marshall , and generally Powel l, adhered to the warrant- based rule , while Justices Whi l e , Blac kmun , a nd Rehnquist , and Chief Justice Burger placed greater emphasis upon the question of reasonableness without necessary regard to the warrant requirement . Arrest warrants and search warrant s requiremen t s are the same , Aguilar v . Texas , 378 U. S . 108 (1 96 4) ; in Ker requirements are the same , Aguilar v . Texas , 378 U. S . 108 (1964) ; in Ker v . California , 374 U. S . 23 (1963) (the validity of warrants are j udged the same , whether issued to state or federal officers) ; (the sufficiency of evidence presented can be questioned at trial , and the accuracy of the allegations establishing probable ca us e) , Spinelli v . United States , 393 U. S . 410 (1969) , United States v . Harris , 403 U. S . 573 (1971) , Franks v . Delaware , 438 U. S . 154 (1978) . 79 The intent of the Exc l usionary Rul e Reform Act of 199 5 was to control crime . Part of the "T a king Back Our Streets Act " contained in t h e Republican Contract with America . Perhaps the Exclusionary Ru le Reform Act of 1995 will justify legalizing the use of t he new CWDT . 80 Stop and Frisk , United States v . Watson , 423 U. S . 411 (1976) , Henry v . Un ited States , 361 U. S. 98 (1959) , Johns on v . United States , 333 U. S . 10 , (1 9 48) , Sibron v . New York , 392 U. S. 40 (1968) , Mallory v. United States , 354 U. S . 449 (1957) , United States v . Cortez , 44 9 U. S . 411 (1981) , 145 Alabama v . Whi te , 496 U. S . 325 (1990) , Davis v . Mississi i , 394 U. S . 721 (1969) , Dunaway v . Ne w York , 44 2 U. S . 200 (1979) , Unit ed States v . Mendenhall, 446 U. S . 5 44 (1980) , Flori V . Royer , 460 U. S . 491 (1983) , INS V . Delgado , 4 66 U. S . 2 10 (1984) , Michigan v . Chesternut , 486 U. S . 567 (1988) , Uni ed States v. Sharpe , 470 U. S . 675 ( 1985) . 81 Search incident to arrest , We eks v . United States , 232 U. S . 383 , 392 (1914) , Carroll v . United States , 267 U. S . 132 (1925) ; Agnello v . United States , 269 U. S . 20 (1925) , Chimel v . California , 395 U. S . 75 2 , 762 , 763 (1969) , Terry v . -Oh-io , 392 U. S . 1 , 19 (1968) , Unit e d Sta-te-s v . -R-o=bins----- -:--o-n- ' 414 U. S . 21 8 , 235 (1973) , Gustafson v . Florida , 414 U. S . 260 (1973) , Unit e d States v . Edwa rds , 415 U. S . 800 (1 974) , Harris v . United States , 331 U. S . 145 (1947) , Trupiano v . United State s , 334 U. S . 699 (1948) United States v . Rabinowitz , 339 U. S . U. S . 56 (1950) , Mincey v . Arizona , 437 U. S . 385 (1978) , United States v . Chadwick , 43 3 U. S . 1 (1977) , New York v . Belton , 453 U. S . 454 (1981) , Maryland v . Buie , 494 U. S . 325 , 334 (1990) . 82 Ve hicular searches , Carroll v . Unit ed States , Scher v . United Sta es , 305 U. S . 251 (1938) , Chambers v . Marone y , 399 U. S . 42 (1970) , Coolidge v . New Hampshire , 403 U. S . 441 , 458-64 (1971) , Preston v . United States , 376 U. S . 364 (1964) , United States v. Chadwick , 433 U. S . l , 12 (1977), United States v . Ortiz , 422 U. S . 891 , 896 (1975) , United States v . Martinez-Fuerte , 428 U. S . 543 , 561 (1976) , United States v . Ross , 456 U. S . 79 8 , 807n . 9 (1982) , Raka v . Illinois , 439U . S . 128 (1978) , California v . Acevedo , 500 U. S . 565 (1991) . 83 Vehicular searches , Carroll v . United States , Scher v . United States , 305 U. S . 25 1 (1938) , Chambers v . Maroney , 399 U. S . 42 (1970 ), Cool idge v . New Hampshire , 403 U. S . 441 , 458-64 (1971) , Preston v . United States , 376 U. S . 364 (1964) , United States v . Chadwick , 433 U. S . 1 , 1 2 (1977), United States v . Ortiz , 422 U. S . 891 , 896 (1975) , United States v . Martine z-Fuerte , 428 U. S . 543 , 561 (19 76) , United States v . Ross , 456 U. S . 798 , 807n . 9 (1982) , Raka v . Illinois , 439U . S . 128 (1978) , California v . Acevedo , 500 U. S . 565 (1 99 1). 84 Elliot ' s Debates . A Century of Lawmakin g , 177 4-1 874 . The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution , on State Rights , Senate , January 1830 . 14 6 85 Id . During this heated debate , it was declared t hat "the Constitution o f the United States is not ' unalterabl e ' and that the people of the United States have at no time , in no way, directly or indirectly , authorized any state legislatures to construe or interpret the [Constitution], mu c h less to interfere , by their [State] o wn power , to arrest its course of operati on . 86 Elliot ' s Debates . A Century of Lawmaking , 1774 -1 873 .. Debates in Convention . The Debates in the Several State Co nvention on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution , Senate January 1830 . 87 See , Weeks v . United States , 232 U. S . 383 , 392 (1914) ; Carroll v . United States , 267 U. S . 132 , 1 58 (19 25 ) ; Agnello v . United States , 269 U. S . 2 0 , 30 (1925) . Chimel v . California , 395 U. S . 752 (1969) , United States v . Robinson 414 U.S . 2 18 1973) ; Gustafson v . Florida , 414 U. S . ----;::2~6~o-- ' (197 3 ) ; and Unit e d States v . Edwards , 415 U. S . 800 (1974) . 88 Katz v . United States , 389 U. S . 347 , 353 (1967) . Justice Ha rlan formulated a two-pronged test for determining whether the privacy interest is paramount : " first that a person have exhibited a n act u a l (s ubjective) expectation of privacy , a nd second , that the expectation be o n e that society is prepared to recognize as ' reasonable .'" 89 California v . Hodari , 499 U. S . 621 , 626 (1991) . Th e Court in Hodari found that Fourth Amendment " seizure " of the person is the same as a common law arrest whereby there must be either application of physical force or submissi o n to the assertion of authority . 9? Fuentes v . Shevin , 407 US 67 , 79 , 92 S . Ct . 1983 , 1994 , 32 L.Ed . 2d 556 . 91 United States v . Mendenhall , 446 U. S . 544 , 554 (19 80 ) whereby t he opinion of Justice Stewart stated that : " A pers o n has been ' seized ' within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if , in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident , a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave ." 92 In Florida v . Royer , 460 U. S . 491 (1983) Court followed t he reasonable perception standard . 93 Michigan v . Chesternut , 486 U. S . 567 , 575 (1 988) . 147 9 4 However , there are restrictions as to reasons given by p o li ce officers as to conceived probable cause for using t h e n e w Concealed weapons Detection Technology . For ~x ampl e , in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S . 47 (1979) an individual's presence in high crime areas would give a p o lice officer no articulable basis to suspect him of C ri.m e ; i. n Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S . 648 1979), a reasonable license or registration violation is necessary ~o authorize automobile stop ; random stops are impermissible ; in United States v. Brignoni - Ponce , 442 U.S . 87 3 (1975) , officers could not justify random automobile st0P solely on the basis of Me x ican appearance of occupants ; in Reid v . Georgia , 448 U.S . 438 (1980), no reasonable suspicion for airport stop based on appearance that suspect and another passenger were tryin g to conceal the fact that they were travelling together . Howe ver , contrary to the Brignoni-Ponce case , in United States v . Martinez-Fuerte , 428 u . s . 543-(1976) , the Court found that halting vehicles at fixed checkpoints to question occupants ~s to citizenship and immigration status permissible , even if officers should not act on the basis of appearance of occupants . 95 United States v . Mendenhall , 446 U. S . 544 , 554 (1980) 96 In recent years , many states h ave legalized the carrying of concealed guns . Nearly two-thirds of the s~a~es now have laws respecting the right of individual citizens to exercise their fundamental right of self- def~nse by carrying concealed firearms as protection against crimi n a l s . According to the NRA - ILA Research & ~nforrnation Fact Sheet , February 3 , 1999 , 31 States have ight To Carry laws . 97 However , in 1957 , t h e precedent set by the Court in ~allor y v . United States , 354 U. S . 449 454 (1957) was that the police may not arrest upon mere sus picion but only on probable ca use. " 98 In United States v . Cortez , 449 U. S . 411, 417-418 (l 98 1), a unanimous court laid o u t the basis for permitting a t0P by police officers . see , also, Ala bama v. White , s 4 96 U . S. 325 (1990) , regardin- g the- a n onymous tip context , the Court required some corroboration regardless of whether the standard is probable cau se or reasonable suspicion , where l ess information , or l ess reliable information can sat i? sfy the l ower standard . 148 9 See , Alme ida-Sanchez v. United States, 41 3 U. S. 26 6 (1973) wh ereby a warrantless stop and search of an a utomobile by t he r o v i ng patrol near the boarder was not upheld ; in Ma r s hall v . Barl ow's , In c . , 436 U. S. 3 07 (1 978) a warrantl es s admin i s t rative inspe ction o f busine s s premises wa s not uph e ld ; and in Mincey v . Ariz o na, 4 37 U. S . 385 (1 978) a warrantless search of a home that wa s a "homicid e s cen e " was p r e c luded. 100 In Ch a mbe rs v . Marone y , 399 U. S . 42 (1970 ) , a nd Texa s v . Wh ite , 423 U. S . 67 (197 5 ) , a wa rrantl e ss s e arch o f an a utomobil e take n to a police station was permitt e d ; in Ne w Yo rk v. Belton , 453 U. S . 454 (1981) , a search incident to arre st was upheld ; in United States v . Ross , 456 U. S . 798 (1 98 2 ) , an automobile search at the scene was upheld . 101 Almeida-Sanchez v . United States , 413 U. S . 2 66 (197 3 ) wh e r e by a warrantless stop and search of an automobile by the r oving patrol near the boarder was not upheld ; in Ma rshall v . Barlow ' s , Inc ., 436 U. S . 307 (1978) a warrantless administrative inspection of business premises was not upheld ; and in Mi ncey v . Arizona , 437 U. S . 385 (1978) a warrantless search of a home that was a "homicide scene " was precluded . 102 Only a f e w justices maintained the warrants-with- narrow- e xcepti o ns approach , however , thos e views were a l wa ys f o und in the dissenting opinion . See , f o r example , Illinois v . Rodrigues , 497 U. S . 177 , 189 where Justice Stevens joins Justice Mars hall ' s dissent ; see , also New Jersey v . T . L . O., 4 69 U. S . 325 , 370 (1985) where Justice Stevens dissents ; and see , Ca l ifornia v . Acevedo , 500 U. S . 565 , 585 (199 1 ) where J ust i ce Steven s agai n dissents. 103 In Griffin v . Wisconsin , 483 U. S . 868 , 873 (1987) , an administrative need was satisfied and justified a warrantless search of probationers ' h ome on less than probable cause . 104 The Supreme Court seems to be permitting more exception s to t h e search warrant requ irement in both searches and arrests . It appears t ha t warrants are becoming o u tmoded . Th e American Law Institu te is of the opinion that as a practica l matter , searches without warrant and incidental to arrest have been up to this time , and may remain, of greater practical importance than searches purs uant to warran ts , and t hat searches under warrants have played a comparatively minor part in law 149 enforceme n t , e xcep t in instances of narcotics and gambling la ws . Ame r ican Law Institute , A Model Code of Pre - Arraignme n t Procedure , Tent. Draft No. 3 (Philadelphia: 1 970) , x i x . 105 In the preceden t case Terry v. Ohio , 39 2 U. S . 1 (1 968 ) , the Supreme Court almost unanimously (Justi ce Dougl as dissent e d) approved an on-the-street investigati o n by a po li ce officer which involved a "pat - down " of the sus pect o f the investigation for weapons. 106 In Te rry v . Ohi o , Id. , the case arose when a police o f fice r o b se rve d three individuals engaging in c onduct whi c h a ppe are d to him o n the basis of training and e xper i e nce to b e involved in crimina l activity , ! -~-, " casi ng " a s t o r e to de termine whether it is viabl e for f uture r obbing , approached t he three individuals , ide ntifi e d himself as a police officer , and when he did n o t receive a p r ompt response , seized one of the men , patted down the exterior of his clot hing , and discovered a gun . In this case , t h e Supreme Court questioned whether t h e police o fficer ' s actions were reasonable . Th e Court tested reas o nableness to det ermine whether the police officer ca n point to specific and art iculabl e facts which taken t og e ther with rational inferences from those facts , would lead a neutral magistrate o n review to conclude that a man of reasonable caution would be warranted in believing t hat possible criminal behavior was at hand and that both an investigative stop a nd a frisk was required. 107 Id . at 23-27 , 29 . Moreover , in Sibron v . New York , 392 U~ . 40 (1968) , a pol i ce officer observed an individual with several known narcotics addi c ts , the police officer approached him and pla c ed his hand i n the individual ' s pocke t , wherein narcotics were discovered . However , because the police officer lacked a reasonable basis for the frisk , and his search exceeded the permissibl e scope for weapons frisk permitted by Terry , the Court h e ld that the search was impermissible. Subsequently , in Adams v . Williams , 407 U.S . 14 3 (1972) , acting on a tip that a suspect wa s sitting in his car with narcotics and firearm , police officer approached and asked the suspect to step out of the case , and initiated a frisk and discovered weapon when he mere ly rolle d window down was found justifiable by t h e Court. Also , in Pennsylvania v . Mimms , 434 U.S . 106 (1977), after validly stopping a car , a police officer r e quired an individua l to get out of the car , obs e rved a 150 bulge under the driver ' s jacket , frisked him and seized a weapon. Th e police officer did not suspect the driver of a ny crime or have an "articulable basis " for safety fears e Court held safety considerations j ustified the police ' th officer requiring the driver to leave the car . 108 Breithaupt v . Abram , 352 U. S. 432 (1957) . 9 The Co ncea led weapons Detection Technology is reported 10 to _be truly n onintrusive , wit h minimal radiation level , which d oe s not invade the body , and reveals nothing of the anatomy. It is reported to take approximately three seconds to administer at a distance of up to 12 feet, a nd ca n d etect all concea'l ed weapons and contra band. 110 Federal Bureau of Investigation , Crime in the United states , 1993 , Washington , o . c .; Federal Bureau of ;nvestigation , 1994 ; National School Boards Association , iolence in the schools ; How America ' s School Boards Are Safeguarding our children , Washi ngton , O. C. ; National Schools Boards Association , 1993 . 111. . The Fourth Amendment to the U. S . Constitution places imits on the power of the police to make arrests , search 1 ~eople, and their property , and seize objects , documents , ~d _contraband , such as illegal drugs or weapons . These C1 imits are couched within t he probable cause requirements . ase law identifies " probable cause " as an apparent state of facts found to exist upon reasonable inquiry , which wou~d induce a reasonably intel l igent , and prudent man to believe , in a crimina l case , t hat t he accused man had committed t h e crime c harged , or , in a civil case , that a ~ause of action existed . coo k v . Singer Sewing Machine Co . b;s _Cal . App . 418 , 32 P . 2d ~ 431 . Reasonable grounds for l~ef that the person s hould be arrested or searched . Th e police office need not necessarily possess knowledge of the facts sufficient to establish guilt , but it must be more ~han mere suspicion . state v . Phil l ips , 67 Hawaii 535 , 696 - 2d 346 , 350 . f' Probable cause i s said to be a j udicial construct . To t~ probable cause justifying the issuance of a warrant , nd tie affia~t must show that he had reasonable_grounds at t he me of his affidavit t hat a l aw was being violated on the ~;emises to be searched , and t he facts set out in the fidavit are so evident that a reasonably discreet and prudent man wou ld b l ed to be l ieve that there was a 151 commi ssion of t he o ffense charged. Dumbar v. Unit e d States , 268 U. S . 4 35 , 439 , 441 (19 2 5). 11 2 See Br i ng e r v. United States , 338 U. S . 160, 180 - 181 (19 4 9) (Ja c ks o n , J ., dissent ing). 11 3 See Skinne r v . Railway Labor Executives ' Associati on , 48 9 U. S . 60 2 , 635 (1989) (Marshall , J ., dissenting) . 114 Olmstead v . United States , 2 77 U. S . 438 (19 28) . See , als o Gol dman v . United States , 316 U. S . 129 (194 2 ). In Go l dman , a d e t e ctapho ne was placed against a wall adj o ining a room, and was not considered a search or seizure . 11 5 Silve rman v . United States , 365 U. S . 505 (1961) wh e re a s pike mike wa s pushed through a party wall until it hit a heat ing du c t . 11 6 Warden v . Hayden , 387 U.S . 2 94 , 304 (1967). 117 Id . Katz v . United States , 389 U. S . 347 , 353 - -- (1967) 118 Id . 11 United States v . White , 401 U.S . 745 , 786-787 (1 971) . 12 0 Reportedly , the major test is the home and entries t o s e arc h or to arrest therein . The Fourth Amendme nt has dra wn a firm line at the entrance to the house . Absent e xigent c irc umstances , a warrant is required . Payton v . Ne w York , 445 , U. S . 573 (1980) ; Steagald v . United States , 451 U. S . 204 (1981) ; and Mincey v . Arizona , 437 U. S . 38 5 ( 1 978) . 12 1 United States v . Chadwi ck , 433 U. S . 1 (1977) . In Arkansas v . Saunders , 442 U. S . 753 (1979) , the Court held although , that if the luggage or container is found in an automobile as to which there exists probable cause to searc h , the l egitima te expecta ncy diminishes , accordingly . Id . United States v . Ross . 122 Exigencies referred to are permitting police officers to make what, but for these exigent c ircumstances , would be considered by the court s of law an illegal search and seizure and anything confiscated as a result of that [e xigent] illegal search would not be ex c luded from tri a l . Th e e x c lusionary rule of excluding e vidence a s a r emedy f o r 152 Fo ur h Amendment violations found its beginning in Boyd v . Uni ted States , 116 U. S . 616 (1886) , ~ v . Ohio , 367 U.S. 4 3 (1961) ; Wong Sun v . United States , 371 U. S . 471 (1963) (v rbal evide nce , such as confessions , and other admi s sions , like all derivative ev i de nce obtained as a r esult of unlawful seizures could be excluded) . Such evidence obtained from an unlawful seizure is known as "fruit from the poisonous tree , " Nardon e v . United States , 308 U. S . 338 , 341 (1939) ; Coolidge v . New Hampshire, 403 U. S . 443 (1971) ; Weeks v. United States , 232 U. S . 383 (1 914); Wolf v . Colorado , 338 U. S . 25 (1949) (unreasonable search and seizure made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment ' s due process clause). 123 Katz v . United Sta tes . 389 U. S . 347 (1967) . 12 4 See , Amos v . United States , 255 U. S . 313 (19 21 ) ; ~ v . United States , 328 U. S . 624 (1 946 ) ; Schneckloth v . Bustamonte , 412 U. S . 2 18 (1973) . 125 United States v . Ramsey , 431 U. S . 606 (1977) (sustaining search of incoming mail) ; I llinois v . Andreas , 463 U. S . 765 (1983) (opening by c ustoms inspector of locked container shipped from abroad) ; Carroll v . United States , 267 U. S . 13 2 (1925) ; Un i ted States v . Thi rty- Seven Photographs , 40 2 U. S . 363 (1971) ; Almeida - Sa nc hez . v . United States , 413 U. S . 266 (1973) ; United States v . Montoya de Hernandez , 4 7 3 U. S . 531 ( 198 5) ( approving warrantless detention incommunicado for more than 24 hours of traveler suspected of alimentary canal drug smuggling , suspect wa s given a choice between an abdominal x-ray or monitored bowel movements . The suspect was found carryi ng 88 coca ine-filled ballons . ) 12 6 Hester v . United St ates , 265 U. S . 57 (1 924) ; Air Pollution Variance Bd . v . Western Alfalfa Corp ., 4160 . S . 86 (1974) ; Katz v . United States , 389 U. S . 347 (1967) ; Oliver v . United States , 466 U. S. 170 (1 984) (approving warrantless intrusion past no trespassing signs and around locked gate , to view field not visible from outside property) ; California v . Greenwood , 486 U. S . 35 (1 988) (approving warrantless search of garbage left curbside readily accessible to animals , c hildren , scavengers , snoops , and ot her me mbers of t h e public ); United States v . Dunn , 480 U. S . 29 4 (1 987 ), (space i mmediately outside a barn , accessible only after crossing a series of ranch - style fences and situated one - half mile from the public road , constitutes unprotected open field) . 153 127 Washington v . Chrisman , 455 U. S . 1 (1982) ; (police o~ficer lawfully in dorm room may seize marijuana seeds and pipe in open view) ; United States v . Santana, 427 O. S . 38 (l976) ("plain view " justification for officers to enter home to arrest after observing defendant standing in open doorway) ; Harris v . United States , 390 U. S . 234 (1968) (o~ficer who opened door of impounded automobile and saw evi~ence in plain view , properly seized it) ; Ker v . C~lifornia , 374 U. S . 23 (1963) (officers e ntered premises without warrant to make arrest because of exigent ci~cumstances seized evidence in plain sight : Mar yland v . Buie , 494 U.S . 325 (1990) (items seized in " plain view" during protective sweep of home incident to arrest) . 128 New Jersey v . T . L . O., 469 U. S . 325 , 370 (198 5) . 129 Id. 130 New Jersey v . T . L . O- , 469 U. S . 325 , 336 , 340 , 342-343 ( 1985) . ( 1987) . 131 O ' Connor v . Ortega , 480 U. S . 709 , 725 132. Hudson v . Pa l mer , 468 U. S . 517 , 526 (1984) ; Griffin v . Wi scons in , Id ., 483 u . s . 868 , 873 - 874 (1 987 ) (search based ~ information from police de tect ive that there was or 0 might be contraband in a probationer ' s apartment) ; Skinner v . Railway Labor Exe c utives ' Ass ' n ., 489 U. S . 602 , 656 , 62 8 ; Nat ional Treasury Employees Union v . Von Raab , 489 U. S . 670-671 (1989) . 133 Id . 134 Reportedly , t h e major test is t h e home and whether to enter to search or to arrest . Th e Fo urth Ame ndment has dr~wn a firm line at the entrance to the hou se . Absent exigent circumstances , a warrant is required . Payton v . New York , 445 , u . s . 573 (1980) ; Steagald v . United States , 45 1 U. S . 204 (1981 ). and Mincey v . Arizona , 437 U. S . 385 (1978) . ' 135 Understandably this incident caused a serious n~tional outcry of i ndignation , especially among the mi~ority communities . The concern was that a national epidemic of police brutality is developing . The National Urban League and a diverse gro up of African American , Asian ~erican , Latino , a nd Jewish leaders called for action from hen President Cl inton against the growing national 154 epidemic of police brutality . Then President Clinton r~sponded by cal ling the issue of p o lice abuse and misconduct " critical," and then Attorney General Janet Reno ac kn owl e dged that the police-brutality issue is "grave ." 136 Skinner v . Railway Labor Executives ' Association , 489 U. S . 602 , 635 (1989) (Marshall , J. , dissenting). 137 Meares , Tracey L . and Dan M. Kahan . When Rights are Wro n g , Chi c ago's Paradox of Unwanted Rights, The Boston Review , May 1999 : PP ? 138 Id . 139 Some empirical mode l s of fear of crime included as a pre dictor , perceived level of crime in the neighborhood . Th~ studies report that locale had an i mpact on fear of cr ime . (Grabosky 1995 ; Rountree 1998) . Th e more crime perce ived in the neighborh ood, the more fear . 140 Grabosky 1995 ; Rountree 1998 . 141 Rountree , 1998 ; Garofalo , 1 979 . 14 2 Garofalo & Laub 19 7 8 ; Garofa l o , 1979 ; Hinde l a n g , Go ttfredson & GarofaI lo 1 978 ; Hope & Ho u gh, 1988 ; LaGrange & F~rraro , 1I 989 ; Lebowift z , 1 975 ; Lewis & Maxfield , 1980 ; Lewis & Salem , 1 986 . 143 DuBow , McCabe , and Kaplan 1979 . 144 Id . 14 5 Id . 14 6 Rountree 1998 . 14 7 . As the present study r ~vealed earlier , its statistical evidence , although qualified , s upports this premise . See Section above entit l ed " Vi ct imization or Vulnerability Perspect i ve of Fear ." 148 Ro untree 1 998 ? Braungart , Braungart , and Hayer 1980 ; Miethe 1995 ; Clar k~ a n d Le wis 1 982 ; Stafford and Galle 1984 . 155 1 4.9 Ra hn , Wendy M. and John Trans ue , 1995. "Th e Political Si gn i f icance of Fear of Cr i me." A Report t o the NE S Board u , n i' v e r si' ty of Minnesota . Thi s study found that for sociall y isolate d individuals , fear of crime is he a vil y b ased o n indi r ec t and mass-mediated information. 150 R . E. Vo gel , S . To rres, Evaluation of Operation Ro~nd up : An Expe riment in t he Control of Gangs to Reduce Cr i me , Fe ar o f Crime , and I mprove Police Community Rela t ions , Poli c ing , Vol . 2 1, Issue 1, 1 998 , pp . 38-53 . A f o ur-ph a s e study was designed to permanently curtai l the ac t i vities of the " Sixth street Gang" and essentially r e t u rn the c ommun ity to its citiz e ns. The goals were to a ~re s t as many gang me mbe r s as possible; to u se h i gh visibili ty and undercover operations to target and arrest gang me mbers not caught in phase one ; to focus on the c ommunity by renovating , uniting and educating the community a nd its me mbers , and provide alternative programs for youth at risk ; t o e nsure that the o ther phases we r e accomplished . d . A one-group , pretest-post-test , quasi - exp e rime ntal esign was used , comparing pretest and post - test attitudes concerning fea r of c rime , at titudes toward the police , f e~ lings about th e neighborhood , and the perception about c rime in the community. The r esult s s howed that the Respondents fe lt sa fe being out alone at night after the ar~est s weep ; and their attitudes i mproved towa rd the ir neighborhood . The re were no significant c hanges in the other a r eas t es t e d . However , the Responde nts remained worri e d about b eing burglarized . The researche rs did conclude that without empirical knowledge of the arrest s weep and proof that the " Sixth Street Gang " wou ld n o t soon r eturn , and how much crime had actually been r e duced in the~r neighborhood , Respondents ' perception of crime in their community would have remained the same. 15 1 Vogel and To rres 1998. 152 Id . 1"5 3 See J . Travi s and w. Bratton , Travi s CNN Int erview, CNN Sund ay Morn ing ," 1997 . A January 12 , 1997 , interview was conducted by CNN Sunday Morning in whi c h Jeremy Travis , e Director of the National Institute of Justice , and th William Bratton , former Ne w York City Police Commissioner . 156 154 See J . Travis and W. Bratton , Travis CNN Interview , " CNN Sunday Morning ,u 1997 . A January 12 , 1997 , interview was conducted by CNN Sunday Morning in wh ich Jeremy Travis, the Director of the National Institute of Justice , and William Bratton , former New York City Police Commissioner imply that crime is decreasing in the Nation . 155 Id . Id . 1S7 Rountree , 1998 ; Garofalo , 1979 . Roun ree 19 98 ; Bra ungart , Bra ungart , and Hayer 1980 ; Miethe 1995 ; Clarke and Lewis 198 2 ; Stafford and Galle 1984 . 159 A consensus among recent and earlier research studies is the fact that high fear of crime decreases with income . (Rountree 1998 ; Braungart , Braungart , and Hayer 1980 ; Miethe 1995 ; Clarke and Lewis 1982 ; Stafford and Galle 1984.) 160 Rountree 1998 ; Braungart , Braungart , and Hayer 1980 ; Miethe 1995 ; Clarke and Lewis 1982 ; Stafford and Galle 1984 . 161 E. Brown , Fear of Assault Among the Elderly , Paper Presented at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the Gerontological Society , Louisville , Kentucky , October 29 , 1975 . Eighty- five percent of the older , urban , female Respondents expressed fear , compare d t o 7 percent of younger , rural , male Respondents . 162 Rountree 1998 . 163 Brown 1975 . 164 Brown 1975 . 165 Brown 1975 ; Rountree 1998 ; Braungart , et al . 1980 ; Stafford and Galle 1984 . 16 6 Skogan and Maxfield 1981 . 167 Boyle and Haire 1996 ; Brown 1975 ; Mi ethe and Miethe 1994 ; Miethe 1995 ; Rountree 1998 . 157 168 Rahn , Wendy M. and John Transue, 1995 . This study re ported that in 1974, 41 % of the Respondents of a Ge neral Social s urve y s aid they we re afraid to walk alone in places near t heir home at night , and in 1994 , aske d th e s ame question b y t h e same survey , even a higher perce n t , 47 %, r e p o rt e d b e ing afraid . 169 This study was conducted by the Great Britain Home Offi c e , Research and Planning Unit , 1995. The 1994 Bri ti sh Crime Survey was used on which to base this fear of crime stud y . 170 E . A . Stanko , Women , Crime and Fear , Annals of the Ame rican Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol. 539 , Ma y 1995 , pp. 46 - 58 . This author explores women's fear of c rime and examines how it becomes the focus of social policy a nd action from political , social , and academi c standpoints . 171 Id . 172 Id . 173 Brown 1975 , 17 4 T . D. Miethe , Fear and Withdrawal From Urban Life , Annals of t h e American Academy of Pol itical and Social Science , Vol . 539 , Ma y 1995 , pp . 14-27 . Thi s article reviews the current literatu re on individuals ' psychological reactions to cr iminal victimization. It describes the nature of crime , the extent , and the correlates of fear of victimization . 175 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice , Bureau of Data and Research , Fear of Crime & Re lated Perceptions in Florida - 1997 , Research Digest , Issue 23 , July 1998 . This was a statewide s urvey that focused on fear of crime and related perceptions . A random sample included 4 , 500 Florida adu lt s 18 or over . This study was conducted by the Florida State University School of Cr iminology and Criminal Justice . 17 6 Gilchrist , Bannister , Ditton , and Fa rral 1998 . 177 E . Madri z , Nothing Bad Happens to Good Girls : Fear of Crime in Women ' s Lives , University of California Press, Ber keley , California , 1997 . The author reported that one of the major purposes of the book was to encourage readers 158 aviors aware of their b eliefs and beh ly ~o b e more criti cal f crime , to be a ware of social fro nting fear o con nently repro duce in s and institutio ns that perma cont e xt on . e and subordina ti r e lati o ns o f do minanc 178 Madriz 1997. 179 Madriz 1997 . 180 Stanko 1995. Fear , Annals of the 181 Crime and 539 , _E . A . Stanko , W omen , e , Vol . of Political an d Social Scienc ~erican Academ y 8 . May 1995 , pp . 4 6-5 ear , Annals of t he 182 Women , Crime and F nko , , Vol . 539 , _E . A . Sta of Political and Social Science ~rican Academ y Fear and Withdra wal From Urban , M~y 1995 . T . D. Miethe Academy of Pol itical and the American epartment of Life , Annals of Florida Dl . 539 , May 1995 . ~cial Science , Vo Data and Researc h , Fear of Justice Bureau of nile ese arch Juve erceptions in Fl orida - 1997 , R ime & Related ~ adriz , Nothing B ad Happens C~ 1998 . E . M iversity ~ ' Issue 2 3 , July Women ' s Lives , U n o Good Girls : F ear of Crime in 1997. t a Press , Berkel ey , California , of Californi ; Rountree 1998 . 183 1995 ; Rountree a nd Land 1996a Miethe 6a ; Rountree 199 8 . 18 4 ountree and Land 199 R 185 Brown 1975 . 186 Brown 1975 . 187 Brown , 1975 . ime , 188 r Rhetoric and Patterns of Cr D. LeBlanc Fea ' 5, pp . 21 - 23 . Ju t ? ' Report , Vol. 11 , Issue 1 , 199 ~ ice e Crime-Fear 18 9 Rountree p w. eexa mination of th . ' 1998 , " R ' rime and Delinqu ency , L. l of earch in C inkage ," Journa Res 35 : 341-72 . 1 90 Id . hman and Mesch 1996 . 191 is Rountree 998 ; Ferraro 1 995 ; F1 192 Rountree 1998 . 159 1 3 Id. 194 Id. 195 uBow , McCabe, and K aplan 1979. D 196 Id. ft e r 197 Crime Victimization Surveys (hereina The National United States erred t o as NCVS) i s conducted by the r e f orm Crime Reports ( hereinafter Ce n s us Bure au. The Unif of R) is conducted by the Federal Bureau refe rred to as OC Investigation . t only 17 percent o f ]98 ha NCVS 1992 data indic ate t e in that in rural areas were victimized by crim h o useholds olds in urban areas were 11 percent year , whereas house h n that year . ictimized by crime than rural areas i mo r e v perienced a ly 3 percent more u rban households ex Near lt , in , such as a persona l robbery or assau the violent crime ed in 4 percent rural ho useho lds experienc 1992 than the burglary or ar . Victimizations such as household me ye risk of sa t from the residenc e are included as property thef isk of imization . Urban r esidents wer e at r property vict rcent in 1992 , whil e rural property victimizat ion 2 0 pe operty s in the same year were at risk of pr resident i zation 11 percent. victim 199 Miethe 1995 . ban Life, 200 . Miethe , Fear and Withdrawal From Ur T . D al merican Academy of Political and Soci Annals of the A , Vol . 539 , May 199 5, pp. 14 - 27 . Science 2 01 Id . ence , Annals 2 02 . Skogan , Reactions to Crime and Viol W.G al Science , merican Academy of Political and Soci of the A p . 1-225 . The Jour nal contains ol . 539 , May 1995 , p e , and presents V s examining public concern about crim ticle ctions ar ique of both politi cal and media depi a parallel crit crime , and the sol utions they have of the nature of proposed . and A. Storey , 199 1 , Influence 2 0 3 , S . Stkins , S . Husai n g on Crime and Fear of Crime , Crime f Street Lightin ailed to report o ntion Unit Paper , 1 9 91 . Thi s study f Preve g improved street any decrease in crim e after introducin 1 60 lighting. There were no significant c hanges. This survey s h o we d o n e improvement and that was in the perceived safety of wome n walking alone after dark in the relit area. 204 Atk i ns, Husain , and Storey 1991 . 205 S . Farrall , J. Bannister, J . Ditton , and E . Gilchrist, Ques tioning the Measurement of the "Fear of Crime: uFindings From a Major Methodological Study, Th e British J o urnal of Criminology , Vol. 37 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1997. 206 Id. 207 After this study was completed , o n June 13 , 2001 , the June 2001 National Crime Victimization Survey was released. This Survey indicates t h at the violent crime rate for persons 12 years o f age and over fell 15 % between 1999 and 000 , resulting in the greatest annual percentage decline 2 and the lowest rate of violent crime recorded since the inception of the National Crime Victimization Survey in 1 9 73 . Violent crime rates fell fo r almost every demographic group considered : males , females , Whites , Blacks , n on -Hi spanics , 35- to 49-year - olds , and 12- to 24 - year-o lds (historically the group experiencing the highest rates of violent victimization) . Violent crime against Hisl?anics was reported to have fallen " somewhat " during the period . The property crime rate fell 10 %. Th e Survey reports that the lower the person ' s annual h~usehold income , the higher the rate of violent victimization . Victimization by Region indicates that Midwesterners and westerners were significantly greater compared to those of persons in the Northeast and South were . Residence variable ind icates t h at urban residents exper ienced overa l l violence at rates higher than suburban a~d rural residents did . Males were victims of overall violent crime at a higher rate than females . The younger the person , t h e high er rate of violent victimization . Blacks wer e violently victimized at a rate higher than the rates of persons of " o ther races ." Most victims of vio l ent crimes , except robbery , did not face an armed offender . However , 26 percent faced a weapon : 8 percent a firearm , 7 percent a knife , 10 percent " other " weapon , and 1 percent weap o n not ascertained . Moreover , of the 55 percent robberies reported , 26% were committed with a firearm . 208 . As the present study revea l ed earlier , its statistical evidence , although qualified , supports this premise . 161 r above Section "V ictimization o Please see the y Perspective o f Fear." Vulnerabilit st on ressives , The Bo 2 0 9 des , Ri c hard H. , The New Prog Pil . Review , May 199 9 : pp er reflect that Statistics furth2 10 eau of Justice guns , most gun The Bur mitted with although most c rime is not com mmitted with ha ndguns . crime is co of Justice , Bure au of Justice 211 The U. S . Departm ent , Programs Guns Used In Crime St atistics , Off ice of Justice July 1995 , NCJ- 148201 . and Prevention , 2 12 Disease Control ough Th e Centers for , thr F' . rveillance Study , June 1 , 1992 lrearm Injury S u May 31 , 1993 . Enforce ment 213 BI , Uniform Crim e Report , Law The F 3 . and Assaulted , dated 1978-199 Officers Killed April 1999) , 956 ( 214 S . Ct . Wyoming v . Houg hton , P . 2d 363 . ts are 215 . and Dan M. Kah an . When Righ on Meares , Tracey L ost anted Rights , Th e B , Chicago ' s Para dox of Unw ~ Review , May 199 9 . 2 16 Id . 217 Id . 218 Id . 219 Id . (1989) 220 & W. Byron Grove s "c Sampson , Robe rt J . , e : Testing Soc ial omm ? ucture and Crimunity Str n J . of Sociolog y 774- D' rica isorganization Theory " 94 Ame' 802 . 221 Id . ts are 222 . and Dan M. Kah an . When Righ s , Tracey L hts , The Boston W Meare ago ' s Paradox o f Unwanted Rig ~ , Chic 9 . Review , May 199 162 223 Rochin v . California , 342 U. S . 165 (1952) . 22 4 Breithaupt v . Abram, 352 U.S . 432 (1957) . 225 Schmerber v . California , 384 U. S . 757 (1966). 226 Id. 227 In Gould v . United Sta tes , 255 U. S . 298 (1921), the Cour t did not permit mere evidence to be seized . However , in United States v. Lefkowitz , 285 U.S . 45 2 (1932), the Co ur t fo und no specia l sanctity in papers , but t heir c haracter as evidence rendered t hem immune . It was not eno ugh me rely to be used to apprehend and convict criminals, Warden v. Ha yden , 387 U. S . 294 , 303 (1967), and, the mere evidence rule was overturned . It is now settled by the Court that such evidentiary items as fingerprints , blood , u rine samples , fingernail and skin scrapings , voice and handwriting exemplars , conversat i ons , a nd ot her demonstrat ive evidence may be obtained through the warrant process or without a warrant where special need of government are shown . Davis v . Mis sissippi , 394 U. S . 721 (1969) , ; Schmerber v . caITiornia , 38 4 U. S . 757 (1966) , Skinner v . Railway Labor Executives ' Ass ' n ., 48 9 U. S . 602 (1989) ; ~ v . Murphy , 412 U. S . 29 1 (1973) ; United States v . Dionisio , 410 U. S . 1 (1973) ; United States v . Mara , 410 U. S . 19 (1973) ; Berger v . New York , 388 U. S . 41 , (1967) . A few medically assisted bodily intrusions have been h e ld impermissible . 22 8 Weeks v . United States , 232 U. S . 383 (1914) . 229 McNabb v . United States , 318 U. S . 332 (1943) ; and Mall ory v . United States , 354 U. S . 449 (1957) , in whi c h the Court enforced a requirement that arrestees be promptly prese nted to a magistrate by holding that incriminating admission obtained during the period beyond a reasonabl e time for presentation would be inadmissible . 230 Culombe v . Connecticut , 367 U. S . 568 , 598-602 . 23 1 Davis , Thomas , A Hard Look At What We Know (and Still Need to Learn About the Costs of the Exc lusionary Rule) , including a report on a 1983 study by the American Bar Foundation . U. S . Comptrolle r General Study , Impact of the Exclusionary Rule on Federal Criminal Pros ecuti o n (Apr . 1 9 , 197 9) . 163 0) . States , 364 U. S . 206 , 2 17 (16 232 d Elkins v . Unite v. 342 U.S . 165 (1 952) ; Ash c raf t 233 California , ted Stat e s, 116 Rochin v. Boyd v . Un i nnessee , 322 U. S . 143 (1944) ; ~e U. S . 6 16 (1 886 ) . na v. 4 ll , 480 U. S . 340 (1987) , Arizo 23 oi s v . Kru Il l in plied its good f aith exception t o 1 15 S . Ct . 1185 , ap , ficer acted i n ~ i n wh ich a law enforcement of compu ter a case ble r e liance on an errone ous tively reasona h e d co urt r ecor ds . objec c rd dra wn f r om n e utral and deta reco ill hat We Know (and St 235 k at W Davis , Thomas , A Hard Loo he Exclusionary Rule) , f t eed to Learn Ab out the Costs o American Bar ~ eport on a 1983 study by t h e r , I mpact of the in c luding a neral St udy undation . U. S . Comptroller Ge cution (Apr . 19 Fo ule on Federal C riminal Prose ' Exclusionary R 1979) . 164 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY Before officially conducting the final instrum ent, it was reviewed and approved by the author's The sis Committee . Subs equently, t h e Human Subject Revie w Board o f the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice approved the study at the University of Maryl and , College Park , Maryland . This survey was conducted severa l years tached , as before the September 11 , 2001 , martyrdom . At the Appendix to the study is a copy of the su rvey instrument . The study as developed follows . Major Research Question The major research question of this study was , " Is public willing to forfeit a Fourth Amendment the general Constituti onal right to be free from unreason abl e search and seizure as a means to receive greater per sonal security against crime and violence? " The stu dy is ted in questioning whether there is a n y corre lation interes between the average citizen who would be willi ng to a host forfeit a Constitutional right to combat crime , and of subpopu l ation independent variables and fa ctors . Specifically , this study is concentrating on two elements : the people ' s Fourth Ame ndment rights according 16 5 to t he Constitution of the United States , and whether People wo uld voluntarily f o rfeit that Fourth Amendment ri gh t to san c ti o n or approve police officers ' immediate f the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technolo gy Us e o (h e reinafter sometimes referred to as the " CWD T " ) . Al so , t h ? t ls study will analyze any statistically signi fi c an correlation between the dependent variable and the articipants ' belief that the new technology is an P infringement o n their Fourth Amendment rights . Moreover , th ip e study is interested in identifying any relat ionsh between those participants whose opinion it is that they Would be willing to forfeit that Constitution al right to Permit police officers the immediate use of th e new e dependent Concealed Weapons Detection Technology , and th variable voluntary forfeiture of their Fourth Amendment rights . This c hapter will outline the steps taken duri ng the study : 1.) preparing , evaluating , sample testing , reevaluating , and sample re -testing the survey instrument , 2 ds , and - ) design of data col l ection and sampling meth o 3 -) statistical methods for analyzing the study data followed by a chapter summary . 166 in the Stud y the Variabl es Development of ndent the study i s the depe The real int erest in Amendment." re of the Fo urth orfeitu variable , " v oluntary f n in this st udy is. primary conc er e research q uestion of Th tion-at-large give ula ople of the general pop "Would pe forfeiting a luntarily us considera tion to vo serio mendment , to be ourth A Co t ? ? nal protecti on of the F ns itutio a nd seizure? " police sear ch free from un reasonable feiting thei r Fourth this study , for Specifically , in fight crime , of helping to ose ment right f or the purp Amend he heir City , S tate , and t orism in t Violence , an d terr Nation . is original survey loped th The interview er deve s f the study . The hypothese he purpose o instrument f or t g veloped befo re selectin ere de nd ependent var iable w a d eping in mind s and factor s . Ke dependent su bpopulation in ions and hyp otheses , research que st th e developed ed according elect es , and fact ors were s independent variabl l potential . The levancy , and influentia to their re e study , whi ch is intent of th nt issue ref ers to the releva ty as possib le , rticulari to ?d ? much pa l entify wit h as eit a to voluntar ily forf V . uence perso ns ariables tha t infl 167 Co n s ti t uti o nal right , specifically , the Fourth Amendmen t r ight to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. Alth o ugh it might be said that since September 11, 2001 , t h e c itizens have already given up that Fourth Amendment r ight at airports , the type of new CWDT technology ide ntified in the present study is not presently being ut i l i zed by law enforcement officials . The independent variables selected for this study a re : age , sex , marita l status , depends , number of depends , race , education , profession , yearly income , and religion . The factors considered were : whether criminally victimized for self ; whether criminally victimized for family member ; number of times cr iminally victimi zed for self ; number of times criminally victimized for family member ; l ast time victimized for self ; last time victimized for family member , gender of family member victimized ; relationship to family member victimized ; whether victim of misde meanor crime and ; or felo n y crime for self ; and whether victim of misdemeanor crime and , or felo n y crime for family ; name of crime (s) victim of for self ; and name of crime(s) victim of for family member . Ot her factors con sidered in the study are : belief in whether law enforcement officials should have immediate 168 se of the new Concea l e d weapons Det ection Technology; u belief whether the use of the new CW DT would be an ment o n the Fourth Amendment rights guaranteed to infringe hether part i cipant wo uld voluntarily all people ; be lief w forfeit their Fourth Amendment righ t for t h e purpose only of permitting police officers the u se of the n ew CWDT; opinion as to what factors would inf luence the participant ture of the Fourth Amendment rights to voluntarily forfei for t h e purpose on ly of police offic er use ; opinion of cealed Weapons where the participant would want the new Con c hnology located ; the participant ' s attitude Detection Te as to who should have control over w hen , where , and how ttitudes toward the new CWDT is used ; the part i cipant ' s a f ear of crime factors identifie d i? n the stu d y ; the the tude toward favor of curfews ; and th e participant ' s atti participant ' s opinion of what govern mental or judicial er use of the new entity should have control over the prop CWDT . Development of the study Instrument The survey instrument is a questionn aire of 61 The survey is based on new Concealed Weapons questions . Detection Technology developed for t he Department of JuS ice , National Institute of Justi ce , Washington , D. C. t 169 Th e s urve y was d e signed for use in measuring the value pl aced o n o n e ' s Constitutional rights , specifically th e Fo urth Ame ndme nt right to be free from un reasonable sear c h and s e i z ure , and whether one would voluntarily forfeit tha t Cons t itutional right if it meant a City , State , and Nation fr ee r f r om c rime . The specific crimes mentioned , p e rs o nal , property , violent , including terrorism crimes- - crimes that often are committ ed with concealed weapons. The instrument consists of four parts : subpopulation ; victimization ; opinions regarding the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology ; and fear of crime , includi ng titude toward curfews . Each part i s test ed against the at participant ' s willingness to forfeit their Fourth Ame ndment right . They are each valued independently , identified through Frequency Tables , and then in combination and conjunction with one another in Bivariat e Crosstabs Using a Chi-Square analysis . Th e test resul ts , analyses , and findings were kept to these basic statistic s in the study . Instrument Validity Inasmuch as this s urvey is an original , it has never been tested for validity of construction or content . Pilot tests were conducted to test individual item 170 r e liability , however . After final modifications were made o the survey sample pilot test , a Citywide sample questionnair of 50 Madison participants , and a sampl e o f 50 D.C . participants was administered . A current telephone book wh ite pages was us e d for each City to make randomly selected telephone calls . However , the possibility that some participants are not reachable because either they do not have a telephone , or they wish to maintain an unlisted telephone number was recognized i n the study . Either of t hese factors could present a problem of bias , inasmuch as , the Department of Justice s tudies report that non-telephone households have somewh at different victimization rates than those households with telephones 1 ? However , the number of those households is probably small enough that any effect on overall rates 2 would not be significant ? Instrument Reliability Two Cities were chosen specifically for their significant differences in subpopulations , especially in the gender , race , a nd rate of crime variables . The two Cities selected for the study are Madis on , Wis consin and Washington , D. C.; both in their own right nationally recognized Cities . Madison enjoys the reputation of 171 having b een voted nationally the " best City" in wh ich t o live , as the " Dairy State ," and is known as a Colle ge town , and the h ome campus of the University o f Wis consin . Wh ereas , t h e District of Columb ia (hereinafter some imes referred t o as ( " D.C. " ) has an infamou s reputation , has been voted na tionally th e "worst C ity" in o l ive , and has been known as the "murder capital " whi c h t of the Nation . In fact , in 1997 , the homi cide rate in Madison was 1 . 5 per 100 , 000 persons , whil e in D. C . the , 000 persons 3 the homicide rate wa s 56 . 9 per 100 ? Moreove r , percent change rate from 1990 to 1997 reflects a - 29 . 9 se c hange f o r D.C . and a -6. 3 change for Madis on . Th e rates d o reflect a significant decrease in crime in D. C . over the p eriod and a slight c h ange for Madis on . Th is rate c hange is especially startling when one compa res t he homicide rate c hange from 1985 to 1997 . For that p eriod in time , the change in D. C . was positive 14 2 . 1 p er 0 , 000 . However , again , for Madison , the rate c hange was 10 4 a ne gative , but somewhat higher , -34 . 8 per 100 , 000 ? Fifty participants from both Cities (N=l00) were selected as randomly as the study would permit to m aintain " representativeness ." Representativeness as used i n the 172 study refers to the concerted effort made duri ng the survey process to give each resident in each C ity an equal opportunity to be selected to parti c ipate in t he study . alysis standards , 50 per group, 100 per study are a By an large e no ugh number to satisfy both the extern al and interna l validity and reliability of the test results. This sampl e size should permit a credible gen eralization the results to the p opulation o f interest , whi ch is the of general public . A sample size of 100 also per mits fair manageability of the data collection . Definiti ons The following terms used in the survey questio nnaire e d e fined to the participants when they occurr ed we r t hroughout the st udy s urvey . A Misdemeanor was defined as a minor crime punishable by a fine , penalty , o r imprisonme nt for less than a year in a City ja il , and that e purpose of the study ; misdemeanor would not for th include traffic violations . A Felony crime wa s defined as a a serious crime punishable by death , or impris onment in State or Federal prison for more than a year . A Concealed Weapon was described in the study as a gun , kn ife , or any object or instrument intended to be used , and could be 173 used by one individual to harm or threa ten to harm another individual . The study also described the hypothetical inten t of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology as used for purpose of the study. The study stated that fo r the the intent of the study , the purpose of the new CW DT is described as follows : to detect concealed wea pons before they are used to commit cr ime and violence ; to be used by law enforcement officia ls to eliminate the ini tial hands- concealed on physical search of a suspect to detect all weapons , espec ially guns , and contraband ; to se arch the individual ' s full-clothed body for weapons , ex plosive , drugs , and ot her contraband ; to detect metallic and nonmeta llic weapons , plastic explosives , drugs , and other contraband concealed under multiple layers of clothing ; to a truly nonintrusive , with minimal radiation le vel be search , which does not invade the body , and rev eals nothing of the anatomy ; to offer the opportuni ty for rapid and remote , hand-held detection of concealed w eapons or contraband ; and to take approximately three (3) seconds to administer , at a distance of up to 12 feet . The study realizes that there are five parti cu lar eleme nts of the new CWDT , which will in all pr obability 174 Th e s e f i ve bias t h e study in f avor of the new CWDT . it is tru l y nonintrusive with minimal eleme nt s are : 1.) radiation l eve l (d oe s no t i nvade the body) ; 2 . ) it does not reve a l i ntimat e anat omical de t a ils (p r ivate b ody par t s) o f t h e subj e ct b e i ng searche d ; 3 . ) it ha s low probab i lity of fals e al a r ms (of making mistake s) ; 4 . ) it ca n b e u sed in large gather ing p l a c es , s u ch as s hopping mall s , schools , me e tin g places , and a i rports ; a nd 5 . ) it would take approximate l y t h ree (3) seconds to admi n ister to a s uspect whil e it al l ows fo r rapid and remo t e d e te c ti o n at a di stan ce of up t o 12 feet , t hu s avoiding the p o t e n tia l ly con frontat i onal , and p erhaps d a ngerou s direct p h ysica l " h and s - o n " sea r c h . Th e st udy i nt ervi e wer (as a pra cticing att o rne y ) remi nded t h e p a r t i cip a nts t hat under t he Fourth Ame ndme nt to t h e Constit u t i o n o f t he Uni ted Sta t es , al l people are g uaran teed the right t o be free f rom un reason a bl e search The p a r t i c ipa n t s were t he n informed t hat the and seizure . n e w CWDT could p oss ibly b e fo und b y law to b e a n intru s i o n of t h a t Fo ur t h Ame ndme nt r ight . When questioned du rin g the surve y whether t hey wo u ld g i ve up t heir Fou rth Ame ndment rig h t " for this p u rpose o n ly ," " for this purpose on ly " was def ine d t o the part i c ipa nts as mea n ing 175 "pe rmitting law enforcement officials , for the purpose of publi c s af e ty , and preventing crime , violence and t e rrorism , t o use the new CWDT hands-off device to detect concealed guns and othe r weapons , metallic and nonmetalli c , such as plastic explosives , drugs , and other c ontraband that may be concealed on suspects f or illegal purposes under multiple layers of c l othing ." A telephone hot line or crisis line was kept at hand during t he administer ing of this study to provide for any participant who experienced trauma or stress after recollecting , acknowledging , and rela ting to the 5 interviewer any crime victimization for self or family ? I t was necessary to provide the crisis hotline for only one resident in each of the Cities participating in the s tudy . One participant had r ecently been a victim of rape , and the other participant had been a recent victim of a burglary in her home by some one the victim knew . Bot h of these participants we r e female . Subpopu l ation Subsection Th e subpopulation s ubsection of the instrument refers to t he individual demograp hics of the participants . The subpopulations are age , sex , marital status , dependents , 176 e pendents , age of nu dm epbe enr do enf tsd , race, education , professio n , y e arly income , and religion . v?i cti. miz a t i? o n Subsection The subse c tion victimization refers to self-reported v ? . for self or any family member , including ictimi zati o n numbe r of family members victimized , number o f times Vi e t? self and family me mber (s) , last time imized for vi c timized for self a nd family member (s), type of ion (misdemeanor or felony) f or se lf V aic nt di m fai mza it ly? member ( s ) , curfews , residen ce loca l e , and crime rate of ne?i ghborhood . New c oncealed Weapons Detection Technology Subsection This subsection refers to a thorough description of the new C oncealed We apons Detection Techno logy; a ion o d fe f "i cn oi nt' c ealed weapons " as us e d in this study ; a ion of the fourth Amendment ; a question whet her one definit' us e of the be1 i? eves poli' ce officers shou ld have i. mme d.i a t e newt echnology ; a question whether using the new tech nology would be an infringement on th e i? r Const?i tutional right ; and a question whether they would forf ei. t that right if it meant a de crease in crime . Th e study question asking why theY would forfeit their right , had a selection of 13 items from which to rank , with one 177 (1) being t he strongest reason why they would forfe it their right , and 13 the least reason why they would it t heir right . This question was qualified with t he forfe statement , " if the use of the new CWDT were permitt ed by law . " The 13 items provided by the study from wh ic h the participants were to select as reasons to forfeit t heir Constitutional rights were : to feel more secure in their homes ; to feel more secure in their neighborhood ; t o feel mor e secure on public streets ; to feel more secure in laces ; to prevent property crimes and violence ; to public p dete r drug trafficking ; to protect law enforcers fr om harm ; to de ter gangs ; to prevent rapes ; to prevent murde rs; to prevent robberies ; to prevent physical assaults ; and to prevent hij acking and terrorism . This section also asked t he participants to rank where they would want the new Concealed Weapons De tecti on Techno l ogy l ocated , with 21 items from which to sel ect , and one (1) the most favorab l e location for the new CWDT , d 21 being the l east favorable locat ion for pla c ing the an new CWDT . Only one location , " i n hi gh crime areas , only ," was not selected by any participant as a place to l ocate the new technology . The 21 locations were : in airp orts ; in Courthouses ; on subways ; in subway stations ; on trains ; 178 in train stations ; in high schools ; in bus depot s ; on rav 1 buses ; in banks ; in youth - oriented places 6 ; in elementary s hools ; on co llege campuses; in bars and nightclubs ; in all stores a n d s hoppi ng ma lls ; in movie theatres ; in public libraries ; in health spas ; in restaurants ; i n ch urches and other religious institutions 7 ; and in high crime areas only ." Thi s subsection further asked the participants to opine who should have control over when , where , and how the new CWDT is used . Four categories were listed to be ranked , with 1 being the most favorable choice , and 4 being the least favorable choice . The four c hoices were : Federal Government ; State Government ; Individuals Vote By Referendums ; and Courts On A Case-By- Case Basis . Fear of Crime Subsection This subsection has two parts : o n e section for self- reporti ng , and one sect i o n for reporting on family T i s s sec ion re , es e the participants to select , rank , or identi fy the ollow g, h y they feared , personal face to face , and or p roperty crime ; to rank thei r fea eith e r a s , very f arful , modera t e ly fearful , or ha rdly fear f u l ; t o select the age ra nge t hey most feared , list i ng five age ranges from wh ich to choose , 179 , 26 - 36 , 37 -4 7 , or 48 or older ; to select from 4-14 ' 1 5 - 25 four h . e time of day they are most fearful, c oices th mornin g , afternoon , eve ning, or after midnight ; to rank the c . ey most feared for self or family members, rime th With 27 i' tems from which to select , high c rime areas only , in the i r n e ighborhood, i n airports , in bus in th ei. r home ' depots ' o n travel buses , in train stations , on trains, in s ubwa y a t ion s , on subways , in youth-oriented places, in st in movie theatres , in restaurants , in bars courth o u ses ' and ni. ght c lubs , in all stores and shopping malls , in in high banks in h ea l th spas, in elementary schoo 1 s , ' school ' on col l ege campus es , in churches and other s in public libraries , on the job , rel?i gi.o u s i? nsti.t utions , The individuals from Maryland wh o and i. n parki? ng lots. Vo lu nteered to take a sample survey suggested the last two item s .. on th e job, and in parking lots - Th ese t wo i,t ems Were considered relevant and possibly revealing survey questi ons , and were included in the final survey inst rument . The section on fear of crime refers to the number of family members the participants fear may be victims of ' the age of the familY members ; and the relationship Crime ? This section of t h e family members to the participant . 180 the participant s live ch lso refers to t he area in whi a and nner - City/City ; suburban ; With the choice s being i e a . espondent was as ked to rate th rural are The R ility) in which they l of crime (inc iv neighborhood le ve a medium crime rhood , live as , a high crime neighbo orhood. Finally , th is crime neighb neighborhood; o r a low tioning whether the c urfews , ques section refers to a " Yes " or " No " ants believe in curfews , with Particip ey believe the answer is Y es , whether th f response , and , i inors living l minors , or fo r only those m in curfews for al ipants were als o areas . The partic in " high crime " ve should be re sponsible ho they belie questioned as t o w ting curfews . Th e c hoices were r establishing and set fo Local Governmen t ; ity or th nt ; t h e Ce Federal Gover nme nd Parents . Ag ain , City a st nts ; or ate Government ; Pare ategory , City a nd e c th est participant s suggested th e t y . The questio n was e Parents , during the sampl e surv f tudy and it was made a part o co . nsidered releva nt to the s the f'i nal instrument . st udy Design imensions of the Demographic an d Geographic D The Study Populatio n selected as the Cities of on and D. C . wer e Madis e dissimilariti es between interest mainly because of th 181 them . The sampled populations in this study differ in geographic location , population size , gender make-up, as Well as racial composition . Madison is located in the Midwest region , and D. C. is located o n the East Coast region of the Country . Of specific interest was the difference in racial makeup and rate of crime in the two Cities . Madison has a low percentage of minorit ies , whereas D. C . has a high percentage of minorities . Madison has a low percentage of violent crime , whereas D. C. has a high percentage of violent crime . Madison has a high Percentage of college graduates and higher ed ucation , Whereas D. C . has a lower percentage of college graduates and hl' gher educa ti on . Madison ' s population includes far less females than males , whereas D. C. has far more females t h an males i?n i'ts popu l a t?i on. This study deliberated these variables , inter alia , as Potential factors to explain any potential correlation between the individual Respondent ' s opinions , b e liefs , and attitudes as reflected in the study . Genera l Characteristics of the Study Population The population studied was the general public . The specific c haracteristics of the independent variables were age , sex , race , religion , education , income , profession , 182 marital status , number of siblings , number of dependents , age of dependents , sex of dependents , social economic status , locale , and education . Independent variables were used to test t he theories of the study which were , favorable or unfavorable response to police officer use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology; the belief in the Constitu ionality of t he new Co ncea l ed Weapons Detection Technology ; and the attitude toward forfeiting that Constitutional right in support of police officer us e of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology to control crime . Although all three of these factors were used interchangeably as dependent and independent variables , the last factor is the ultimate dependent variabl e in the study : Whether an individual would forfeit their Fourt h Amendment Constitutional right to support law e nforcement off icer use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology to deter , eliminate , and control crime and terrorism in this Country . Other independent variables in t he study are belief in curfews ; previous victimization (for self and family) ; fear of future victimization (for self and family) ; and what entity should control the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . 183 Data Col l ect i on Schedule The data collection schedule utilized in the study The interviewer read was in t he form of a questionnaire . each question and definition from the schedul e t o t h e The answers were study Respondents over the telephone . appropriate l y filled in on the questionnaire for each indi? vi? dual Respondent and each individual response . All of the results from the independent and the dependent va ri?a ble questions of the study were analyzed using the The dat a no mi? na l or ordinal level of measurement . collected at this time did not require nor was it desired to analyze the data in more sophisticated methods than th0se utilized , which included statistical analyses methods of Frequency counts , and Percents , and Bivariate The tests were Crosstabs using the Chi - Square method . conducted at the Alpha Level of 0 . 05, two - tailed , unless The analyses tested for significant 0therwise not ed . statist i cal differences at the 0.05 Alpha Level . Th e statistical results are displayed using selective basic Frequency Tables , Pearson ' s and Chi-Square Charts , and Crosstab Tabl es . 184 Sampling Designs and Procedures Representativeness was considered in this study . The s udy considers a sample size of n =S O per City large enough to satisfy both the external and internal validity and reliability of the study . This sample size permits a credible generalization of the results to the population of interest , whi c h is the general public . The variables selected were found to be compa rable to the true population s of Madis on and D. C . Study Instrument The research design was a sample survey schedule . The instrume n t was in the form of a questionnaire , and was admi nistered through telephone interviews . The interviewer read the survey questionnaires over the telephone to the participants of the survey . The sampled Cities of Madison and D. C . each contr ibuted a sample size of n=S O. The cross -sectional , exploratory , one -time - only observation survey was the design used to accumulate data to formulate a nd answer the research questions and to develop hypotheses to be tested . Data Processing Procedures Most of the variables in this study were nominal in level of measu rement ; some were ordinal ; and a fe w 185 interval ratio . Th e values of 1 and 2 were assigned o each nominal variable ; the answer "No " has a value of 2 , and the answer "Yes " has a value of 1 . In addition , Male has a value of 1 , and Female has a value of 2 . Measured using the ordinal level of measurement , after being collapsed, were, High School Education or less with a val ue of 1 , Some College has a value of 2, and College Graduate or Higher Education has a value of 3 . The variable Race was measured nominally; Black , or other minority has a value of 1, and Caucasians has a value of 2 . The Race variable was analyzed just using the two races , Black and Caucasian inasmuch as the "Other" category was minimal , less than 5 , per target City . Other variables in the study were analyzed as either nominal or ordinal in level of measurement . At some point in the analysis , utility dictated collapsing the ordinal level variables into two categories. The variables signifying statistically significant relevance was noted , and further relationship analyses were conducted using the Crosstabs Chi-Square method . For example , if an i ndependent variable indicated a significant number would voluntarily forfeit their Constitutional right for police office r right to use the new CWDT , the dependent variable , 186 yzed testing to find any th variables wou ld be anal o se p , positive or hi st ti cally signifi cant relations a tis e and the vario us ependent variab l n e gative , betwe en the d - Square , and ariables using Crosstabs , Chi i nd e pende nt v , and Spearman 's(rs ) tests . Pears on's (r ) tudy were used t o tatistical anal yses of this s The s research theori es : the following de velop and es tablish ly than Caucasi ans to are more like 1 . Minorities ourth Amendment eir F ort/not support forfeiting th supp led officer employ ment of concea ht to permit p olice rig weapons technol ogy . ege graduate an d 2 . Education at the coll than not to for feit sional level ar e more likely Profes ed weapons dment right to employ conceal their Fourth Ame n technology . than females to ore likely 3 . Males are m Amendment port forfeiting their Fourth support/not sup ons technology . concealed weap right to employ than Caucasian Males Black males are more likely 4 . g their Fourth Amendment t/not support f orfeitin to suppor eapons technolo gy . ncealed w right to employ co 187 5 . Caucasian males are more likely than Caucasian femal e s to support/not support forfeiting their Fourth Ame ndment righ t o e mpl oy concealed weapons technology. 6 . Inner-city male Respondents are more likely than rural males to support/not support forfeiting their Fourth Ame ndment right to employ concealed weapons technology. These are but a few theories . All of the independent v a riables and dependent variable were used to hypothesize a thesis . All of the hypotheses in the study tested for statist i cal significance at least at the 0 . 05 Alpha Level . This study provides a scale , by specific demographics , of a participant ' s willingness or unwillingness to forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for employment o f the new crime prevention technology described in this s tudy . This study provides general consensus , as well as more specific consensus of acceptance of this new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Correlations A corre lation coefficient describes the extent to which data points of two different variables , for example , whether Race and Voluntary Forfeiture tend to fall along a straight line . As the points disperse away from a linear relationship , the correlation is said to be weaker , and 188 r closer to a s traight oints cluste conve r se l y , as the p 8 ? All is said t o be s tronger line , t h e corr elation and 1. ts return a val ue between - 1 en cor r e lati o n c o e ffici indicates the slope of the (-/+) of the n umber Th e sign o dicates that th ere is n l ine. A corre lation of O in . A correlatio n ariables at all correlation be tween the v dicates that th ere is or+ signs , in o f 1 , regardle ss of - ariables . In social v fec t correlatio n between the a Per considered lations around 0 . 30 have been sciences , c o rre is nsistent with t his practice . It Sa t ? lsfacto ry and co vel are usually le ations below th is suggested that correl re significant 9 ? even if they a of little prac tical value nships are not detected . Thus , eover , nonlinea r relatio Mor orking with any itation of not w lim because of the only working w ith variables , but interval/ratio level on evel data , Pea rson correlati l l nominal and or dina oefficient (r ) 5 Spearman ' s cor relation c coefficient (r) and ata for this st udy , as analyze the d me thods are us ed to 2 - Square (X ) me thod . Chi Well as the Cr osstabs Instruments A Sample Sched ule of struments is in cluded with ple schedu l e of in A sam - tributions , as well as cross this study . Frequency di s e tables were pr oduced from th sectional distr ibutions of 189 results of the study . These tables are depicted by demogra ph ics s uc h as age , sex , ra c e , a nd educati o n , using factors s u c h a s wh e ther o r not individuals beli e ve they would f o r fe it th e ir Fourth Amendment rights f o r t he us e o f the n e w Co nceal e d Weapons Detecti o n Techn o l o gy ; a nd s e l e cted reaso n s wh y t h e p a rti c ipants would o r wo u ld not forfe it t he i r Constitutional right . This re s ea r c h project is intended to enable sc i e ntists , with a certain degree of certainty , to predi c t the hypothe tical relationships between the depe ndent variable , f o rfeiture of a Consti tutional right to permit the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Techno logy i ss ues , and subpopulations such as demog r aph i c s o f ra ce , a g e , sex , vi c tims of a crime , and o ther subpopul a tion s , a s we ll as factors s u c h as the Constitutionality of such new DT , a nd the actua l need for immediate police officer use CW of the new CWDT to deter crime and violence in the Nati o n . The study faced several sampling sources of error . First , the st udy is un ab l e to report that each home in th e Cities o f interest had an equal chance of selection. Ho we v e r , although the great majority of homes is assume d t o have be e n available for selection for the study , it i s ac knowledged that some of the residents of the target 190 while othe rs have unlist e d have teleph o n es , Cities did not dy cannot atte st to the stu numbers ' 0 ? Consequentl y , units in Madi son or itywide househo ld r epresenting t he C the rate not , any overa ll effect o n D.c. Neverthe less tudy. Thus , the not be signifi cant to the s reached should thorough repre sentation. st ts udy can attest as to i ple size of n =5 0 p er group , m eiterate , a sa Moreover , to r be considered tistically can th an N=lOO po pulation , sta wi e target popu lation--the esentation of th an adequate re pr Nation . ing error of th e e st udy faced the non - sampl Second , th e nature of th is study ll . Consideri ng th Respondents ' r e ca y recall required , however , an d depth of the and the limite idate the stud y . cal l error sho uld not inval re per group is gh the sampl e si ze of n =50 Third , althou may somewhat smal l and possibly s still adequate , it i the estimat es . A ificant bias in ca us e a slight ly sign spondents ipso cally , if Re bias may be ca used , specifi rom non-Respon dent s . emographically di ffer f ~ d the two rue for the st udy given However , this may not be t correct for Nevertheless , an attempt to Ci ties selecte d . e population o f D. C.", and th as , especially the divers is bi cts espondents , sp ecific Distri n ' s R lack thereof i n Madiso 191 were required in the manner discussed above as cutoff guides for both Madison , Wis consin , and Washington , D. C . Equal representation of the true population of Madison and D. C . was achieved throug h selective randomnes s from the four well-established Districts in both Cities. The four Districts in Madison are : the East Side (including the Isthmus area around the Square of Madis on) ; the We st Side ; the South Side ; and the North Side . The four D. C . Districts are : the Northeast ; the Northwest ; th e Southeast ; and the Southwest . Ideally , 25 percent of the participants had to be sampled from each District of each City . Consequently , to validate the study in one respect , but lose some of its randomness , an equal sampling from 12 each District was accomplished ? It was important to the study to sample each District equally . Each District for both of the sampled Cities represents a disproportionatel y populated characteristics such as certain income level , race , age , inter alia . For instance , in Madison , the East Side r e presents the college age area of Madison . A to ta l sample size of N= lOO is manageable . Therefore , not much consideration had to be given to data col lection errors res u lting from re-coding and coding 192 data , o r to errors in estimating values for missing data . No data was missing from this study . Madison has a population of 157 , 983 (age 16 years or older ) . The racial segment of the population in Madison is White (91%) , Black (4 %) , and "Other " (6%) . The racial brea kdown of the Madison sample population is 6 percent Blacks , 92 percent Caucasian , and 2 percent "Other . " The " Other " race for Madison includes Latino , Asian , Pacific Islander , American Indian , Aleut , and Eskimo . This sample is well within the true population percentage for Madis on , as reported by the U. S . Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics of 1998 13 ? The total population in D. C. is 412 , 593 (population age 16 or older ) . Fifty-three percent of the true population in D. C. is of the Black race , 41 percent is of the Caucasian race , and 6 percent is of the "Other " race . This is a strong contrast to the Madison racial demographics in the true and sampled populations . Of the 50 Respondents surveyed in D. C., 68 percent is of the Black race , 24 percent is Caucasian , 4 percent is Latino , 14 2 percent is Asian , and 2 percent is "Other " race ? The " Other " category for D. C. true population included Asian , Pacific Islander , American Indian , Aleut , and Eskimo 193 The Asian race was not included in the "Other" ra c es . ca t e go ry f o r the samp l ed population because the race was n o t represented in the sampl e. The sampl e population for D. C . is not t hat similar in race to the true population. This may be because as a rule , the telephone calls were made to homes only once , a nd Blacks were more often at home during the time of day the calls began. In addition , e knowledge that Blacks are skeptical about filling out th c ensus reports cou ld explain this discrepancy . Summary To accomplish this study , a series of steps were After receiving appropriate human subject undertaken . clearan ce from the University of Maryland , the co llection Phase one involved of data was conducted in t h ree phases . selecting specific s ubject locales of interest . The specific Cities of Madison , Wisconsin and Wa s hington, D.C . were selected during this phase for reasons previously stated . Phase two involved contacting subject residents of Using the whit e Madison , Wis consin , and Was h ington , O. C. pages of t he telephone book for each City , the interviewer c l osed her eyes and blindly selected 100 telephone numbers Th e interviewer wrote the numbers down , placed at a time . 194 t hem in a pile , and blindly selected one number at a tim e to te lephone . When the interviewer ran out of telephone numbers , she blindly selected another 100 telephone numbers , wrote them down, placed them in a pile , and blindly selected telephone numbers randomly . Each te l e pho n e number was dialed once until the sample size w as c omplete . Genera lly , if there were no answer to the first telephone ca ll , the telephone number was not recalled . However , callbacks were made only if the target answered the first telephone call , expressed interest i n the study , and specifically requested to participate in the study a t a specifi ed later time 15 ? The survey sampl e design initially was a simple random sample of telephone numbers within t h e Cities of Madison , Wis consin , and Washingt on , D. C . After taking half of the samples , it became apparent that all Distric ts within the sampled Cities were going to be unequal in representation . To compensate for t hi s inequality in representat i o n and for the sake of preserving the integrity of the study , whenever it became apparent that any particular area was not being equally represented , th e design became one of random selectivity . 195 u e rt to achieve furth e r a tr o Thu s , in an e ff grity of the study , the inte ulation sampl e to preserve Pop ess of the stu dy, omn aintain the te lephone rand a nd t o m to the Distri ct in s were selecte d according Respondent ately , one of the initial Whi c h the y liv ed . Ultim istrict d o ents was , " In what D s ti o ns as ked o f the resid q ue not from a " n eeded " al were f the individ u Yo u live ? " I politely end . Th is process uld i s tri c t , the interview wo D ined . sample sizes were obta on t inu e d unti l the desired c of both d in the samp ling is sampl ing pr oblem occurre Th Cities . nalyzing , eva luating , and hree involved a Phase t to results of th e responses about the making assump tions to SPSS 10 . 0 . The data w as entered in th e questionnai re he Likert-type T stical Analys is . Windows For S tudent Stati d r the attitude , belief , an as not employe d fo s c al e w riables to the mited its va 0 nion section ; the study li Pi surement . At this pe level of m ea nominal and o rdinal ty rving whether e only interes ted in obs time , the stud y is ationship betw een tistically sig nificant rel there is a sta d the depende nt endent variab les an any of the in dep h and directio n , ing the streng t variable , and determin p identified . shi of any relatio n Positive or n egative , 196 ple size of N =l00. sulted in a sam Thi s methodo logy re analyses of ta methods for da na lly , the s tatistical Fi , as well a s rman ' s (rs ) C orrelations Pea r son ' s (r) , and Spea bserved Biva riate 2 based on the o Ch i - Square ( X ) , nd the findin gs a s , were used elations usi ng Crosstab Corr reported in the study . and results are from the stud y nce revealed Statistics o f significa Correlation n ' s(rs ) Pearson ' s(r) and Spearma are : e officers ' tudy as , Bel ief in polic identified i n the s ntary forfeit ure of T ; and Volu diate use of the new CWD imme positive ith a moderat e , ourth Amendm ent right w a F ture of the = . 384) ; Volu ntary forfei relationship (r= . 384 , r 5 the new techn ology that Amendment , and Belief Fourth s , with a we ak , t right es the Fourt h Amendmen infring technology lation (belie ve the new corre moderate , ne gative ights) (r=- ne ' s Fourth Amendment r would not in fringe o nd Voluntary a and , Immedia te delivery , ?263 , r s=- . 26 3) ; rrelation (r= - . 218 , tive co th a weak , n ega forfeiture w i significant at sults are st atistically re r s= .218) . T hese tailed test . th 01 , 2 - e Alpha Leve l 0 . study . Of tested vari able in the a Fear of crim e is s are percent of th e resident 36 e population , Madison ' s tru ity1 6 Of D. C. ' s true n their C fearful of c rime i 197 idents are fea rful o f e res opulation , 74 percent of th P icates tha t population in d c rime in thei r City . The sample crime , ashingt on Resp ondents fear 52 WP e rcent o f the Respondents f ear crime . adis on hereas 44 perc ent of the M w tudies of crime rese arch s This study re lied on fear f hypotheses . Sp ecifi cally, hich t o theori ze o upo n w logists studie s o , psychologist s , and c rimin soc i o l ogists l predictor of as an empirica th crime at report fear of s believe once studie behavior . The auth ors of these human , that being a violen t crime victim iences a Person expe r ny types of cr iminal fear ma Person begins to ences that mor e ict imi zation 17 ? This study evi d V articipants in . c . ( 52 %) than the p Participants i n o urther r crime . The stu dy f Madison (44 %) actually fea nts who experi enced participa evidences tha t those o. c . anor crime at were victims of a misdeme Victimi zation , 53% s of a felony crime and 38 . 5% were victim s , least two time participants w ho were f the Madison at least two t imes . O demeanor crime ctims of a mis50% were vi Victims of cri me , s of a felony 6 . 7% were vict im at least two t imes , and 1 imes . crime at least two t components of s identify two Moreover , thes e studie onent , and an k perception c omp fear as a cog nitive or ris 198 mponent. Both of the se afraid" co emotion or "bein g idered and s researched are cons c omponents as w ell as other lyzed in the stu dy . ana respond in diffe rent ways ed previously, p eople As not dy supports the crime 1 8 f ? This stu to crime and fea r o d and engulfed b y fear ppresse belief that peo ple are so o is fear and violence , and te rrorism (and th of crime , e drastic and dr amatic robably even mor oppression is p 11 , 2001) , that they are since the attack of September onstitutional rig ht to regain Willing to forfe it a C rtantly , to stop lives , but more impo control of their s the view that this espouse being afraid . This s tudy inal and Terrori st State of Crim Nation is now in a ached the "State re ; that this Nati on has finally Urgency hall in ntly expressed b y Justice Mars e of Urgency " so e loqu ty often e that , " Grave t hreats to liber 1989 when he wr ot onal rights seem gency , when Con stituti come in times o f ur is study believe s that now dure19en ." Th too extravagant to ew CWDT to the N ation , roduce the n may be the time to int ide . and let the peo ple dec ENDNOTES D., , Steadman , Greg W., Minton , Todd 1 Smith , Steven K . of inal Victimi zatio n and Perceptions Townsend , Meg , C rim epartment of Safety in 12 Ci ties , 199'8 , U. S . D Community 199 Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics, and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 2 Id . 3 Id . Crime In The United FBI , Uniform Crime Reports, States 1985-1997 . The telephone number provided for Madison Respondents 5 was (608) 251 - 23 45 , and the telephone number provided for Washington, D. C. participants was (202) 387 - 6775 . 6 Youth - oriented places was described to the Madison and D. C . Respondents as , " any place where teenage i ndividuals have a tendency to frequent ." The response to this particular question surprised 7 the interviewer. The interviewer asked several of the Madison Respondents wh y such a high response for churches. The Respondents replied that of late , there had been a rash of c hurc h crimes . 8 Hinton 1995 . 9 Azjen and Fishbein 1980 . 10 Department of Justice studies report that non- telephone households have somewhat different victimization rates than those households with telephones . However , the number of those households is probably small enough that any effect on overall rates would not be significant . Smith , Steven K., Steadman , Greg W., Minton , Todd D., Townsend , Meg , Criminal Victimization and Pe rceptions of Community Safety in 12 Cities , 1998 , U. S . Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics , and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 11 The populace in several Districts in Washington , D. C. is known to be inhabited by one race overwhelmingly more than anotner . Th e same is not true for the populace in Ma dison , Wisconsin. Minoriti es have always been a small percentage of Madison ' s population . However , since this bias i s cancelled out considering the overall percent 200 o f the minority races in Madison, any signific ance is minimal. A count was kept per District for each City . When 12 the representative sample size was reached fo r that District, the interviewer had to start asking the telephoned Respondents i nitially , in what Dis trict they the lived . If the response was a District for wh ich size had been reached, 25% , then the intervie wer sample would thank the respondent , end the interview , and randomly select the next number. man , Greg W., Minton, Todd D., 13 Smith , Steven K., Stead Townsend , Meg, Criminal Victimization and Per ceptions of Community Safety in 12 Cities, 1998 , U. S . Dep artment of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics , and Of fice of Communi ty Oriented Policing Services . The po pulation statistics used for Madi son and D.C. include Respondents rs of age , or older . In the instant study , th e l6 yea Respondents were 18 years of age or older . 14 Id. There were numerous such requests in Madi son , 1 5 Wisconsin , and several in Washington , D.C. P articipants of the study requested copies of the study wh en compl eted . 1 6 Smith , Steven K., Steadman , Greg W. , Minton , Todd D., f Townsend , Meg , Cr iminal Victimization and Per ceptions o nity Safety in 12 Cities , 1 998 , U.S. Departme nt of Commu Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics , and Of fice of Community Oriented Policing Services . 17 Rountree , 1998 ; Garofalo, 1979. 18 DuBow , McCabe , and Kaplan 1979 . 1 9 See Skinner v . Railway Labor Execut ives ' Association , 489 U.S. 602 , 6 35 (1989) (Marshall , J. , dissenting) . 201 CHAPTER IV : RESUL TS nalyses of apter will present results of the a Th is c h in the study. The trument used the data from t he s urvey ins analysis of the in dependent urvey s ample and o verall s d by a presentatio n e riables are describ ed first , follow va xt of five researc h data in the con te o f t he experimenta l hypotheses . nships were found to be latio Only five of the r e ose five lly significant , t herefore , only th statistica five independent variables are full y analyzed . The that the new Conc ealed Weapons variables are : Belief immediately to law should be deliver ed De tection Technolo gy Belief whether or not the new enforcement office rs ; e Fourth s Detection Techno logy infringes on Concealed Weapon rum should control inion as to what fo Amendment rights ; Op etection Technology ; d Weapons D the use of the ne w Conceale dividual ; and Beli ef whether of an in Previous victimiza tion cri?m e 1 urfews reduce Nati onal . 0 r not c mary Survey Respondents Sum spondents in the st udy . The two There were 100 Re shington , D. C. were isconsin and Wa Cities of Madison , W 2 f their known diss imilarities , as selected because o ty Respondents who tudy . Fif further evidenced in the s rvey instrument ly answered the qu estions on the su Willing ity . represented each C 202 Tables 1 through 9 s how demographic frequency tables , and where appropr?i ate , d escri? pti?v e s t a t i? sti?c s o f Mda ison, Wisconsin (hereinafter referred to as "Madis on " ), and Washington, D. c. ( hereinafter ref erred to as "D. C. " ) Respondents . Race Table 1 s h ows the racial breakdown of the Madison and Fifty-eight perc D e. nC t . (R 58e %sp ) o on fde 3 t n ht es ? Respondents i s Caucasian , 37 % is of the Black race , 2% is of the Latino race , 2 % is of the Asian race (represent e d in 4 the Madison on ly) , and 1% is of the "Other " race . Gender Table 2 shows t h e gender breakdown of the Madi son and Fifty percent (50 %) of t h e Responden ts D. c . Respondents . 5 Th ese results were a r e Mal e , and 50 percent is Female ? not int e ntional , yet nonetheless the y are indicative of the true populations 6 ? Religion Table 3 shows the religious breakdown of the Madison Fifty- four percent (54 %) of the a nd D. C. Respondents . Respondents is Protestant , 14 percent is Catholic , 4 percent is Jewish , and 28 percent is of the " Other " religion 7 . 203 Age Table 4 shows t he mean age of t he Respondents as approxima tely 46 years of age , the median is 44 years of age , the mode is mul tiple (28 , 40 , a nd 55) with the s mallest value shown of 28 years of age . The min imum age is 18 ; the maximum age is 84, with a range of 66 years 8 ? TABLES 1 THROUGH 4 RACE OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid BLACK 37 37.0 37.0 37.0 CAUCASIAN 58 58.0 58 .0 95.0 LATINO 2 2.0 2.0 97 0 AS IAN 2 2.0 2.0 99.0 OTHER 1 1.0 1.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 1a RACE OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Va lid Percent Percent Valid BLACK AND OTHER 42 42.0 42.0 42.0 MINORITIES CAUCASIAN 58 58.0 58.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 1b SEX OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Va lid MALE 50 50.0 50.0 50.0 FEMALE 50 50.0 50.0 100.0 Tota l 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 2 RELIGION OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid PROTESTANT 54 54 .0 54.0 54.0 CATHOLIC 14 14.0 14.0 68.0 JEWISH 4 4.0 4.0 720 OTHER 28 28.0 28.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 3 20 4 AGE OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS N Valid 100 Missing 0 Mean 46.48 Median 44.00 Mode 288 Range 66 M1111mum 18 Maximum 84 TABLE 4a a. Multiple modes exist . The smallest value Is shown AGE RANGE OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 18 TO 39 YEARS OF AGE 39 39.0 39 0 39.0 40 TO 55 YEARS OF AGE 28 28.0 28.0 67.0 56 TO 84 YEARS OF AGE 33 33.0 33.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 4b AGE OF RESPONDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Va lid YOUNGER - 18 TO 30 10 10.0 10.0 10.0 YEARS OF AGE OLD ER - 31 YEARS OF 90 90.0 90.0 100.0 AGE A ND OLDE R Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 4c 2 05 AGE OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Frequencv Percent Val id Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 18 2 2.0 2. 0 2.0 19 2 2. 0 2.0 4.0 20 1 1.0 1.0 5 .0 21 2 2.0 2.0 7.0 22 3 3.0 3.0 10.0 23 1 1.0 1.0 11 .0 24 1 1.0 1.0 12.0 25 3 3.0 3.0 15.0 26 2 2.0 2.0 17 .0 27 2 2.0 2.0 19.0 28 4 4.0 4.0 23.0 29 1 1.0 1.0 24.0 30 2 2.0 2.0 26 .0 32 1 1.0 1.0 27.0 33 3 3.0 3.0 30.0 34 3 3.0 3.0 33.0 36 2 2.0 2.0 35.0 37 1 1.0 1.0 36.0 39 3 3.0 3. 0 39.0 40 4 4.0 4.0 43.0 41 3 3.0 3.0 46.0 42 1 1.0 1.0 47.0 43 2 I 2.0 2.0 49.0 44 2 I 2.0 2.0 51 .0 45 3 3.0 3.0 54 .0 48 2 2.0 2.0 56.0 49 1 1.0 1.0 57 .0 50 1 I 1.0 1.0 58.0 51 2 2. 0 2.0 60.0 I 52 1 1.0 61 .0 I 1.0 53 1 1.0 1.0 62.0 54 1 1.0 1.0 63 .0 55 4 4.0 4.0 67.0 56 1 1.0 1.0 68.0 57 1 1.0 1.0 69.0 58 3 3. 0 3.0 72.0 59 1 1.0 1.0 73.0 60 3 3.0 3.0 76.0 61 1 1.0 1.0 77.0 63 1 1.0 1.0 78.0 65 1 1.0 1.0 79.0 66 2 2.0 2.0 81.0 68 2 2.0 2.0 83.0 69 2 2.0 2.0 85.0 71 3 3.0 3.0 88 .0 72 2 2.0 2. 0 90.0 73 3 3.0 3. 0 93.0 75 1 1.0 1.0 94.0 76 2 2.0 2.0 96 .0 77 1 1.0 1.0 97 .0 80 1 1.0 1.0 98.0 83 1 1.0 1.0 99.0 84 1 1.0 1.0 100.0 Total 100 I 100.0 100.0 206 Th e specific age ranges were selected more f or e quality of representation . The older over 31 years of age group and the younger 18 to 30 years of age group were s pecifically selected for comparison among previous resea r c h r e ferenced for the study that used similar age gro up s . Marital Status Table 5 shows the marital status breakdown of the Ma dison and D. C . Respondents . Forty- three percent (43 %) of the Respondents are marri ed , 38 percen t is single , 10 p e rcent is divorced , and 9 percent is widowed 9 ? Dependents Table 6 shows the dependent breakdown for the Re spondents . Twenty-six percent (26 %) of the Respondents report having d e p endents and 74 percen t report having no dependents . Of the Madison , and D. C . Respondents with depe ndents , 7 percent have teenage depende nts 10 . Education Table 7 shows t h e educati on level breakdown of the Respondents . Twenty percent (20 %) of the Respondents have c ompl eted high school or less education . Twenty-nine p e rcent (29 %) of the Respondents have some college , and 29 p e rcent h ave completed college . Twenty-two percent (22 %) have a graduate or professional school education11 ? 207 Profession Table 8 s hows the profess ional level breakdown of the Respo ndents . forty -seven percent (47%) of the Respondents are white-collar e mpl oyees , 16 percent is blue-col lar e mployee s , 7 percent is students, 21 percent is retirees , 2 12 percent is h ousepersons, and 7 perce nt is un e mpl oyed ? TABLES 5 THROUGH 8 MARITAL STATUS OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid MARRIED 43 43.0 43.0 43.0 SINGLE 38 38.0 38.0 81 .0 DIVORCED 10 10.0 10.0 91 .0 WIDOWED 9 9.0 9.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 5 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS W ITH DEPENDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Va lid YES 26 26.0 26.0 26.0 NO 74 74.0 74.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 6a MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WITH TEENAGE DEPENDENTS Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid NO DEPENDENTS 74 74.0 74.0 74 .0 DEPENDENTS BUT NO 19 19.0 19.0 93.0 TEENAGE DEPENDENTS TEE NAGE DEPENDENTS 7 7.0 7.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 6b EDUCATION OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Cumulative Freouencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS 20 20.0 20.0 20.0 SOME COLLEGE 29 29.0 29.0 49.0 COLLEGE GRADUATE 29 29.0 29.0 78.0 GRADUATE/PROFESSIONAL 22 22.0 22.0 100.0 SCHOOL Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 7 208 PROFESSIONS OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Freauency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid WHITE COLLAR 47 47.0 47.0 47.0 BLUE COLLAR 16 16.0 16.0 63.0 STUDENT 7 7.0 7.0 70.0 RETIRED 21 21.0 21.0 91.0 HOUSE PERSON 2 2.0 2.0 93.0 (WIFE OR HUSBAND) UNEMPLOYED 7 7.0 7.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 8 I ncome Table 9 shows the mean yearly income of the Res pondents as approximate l y $49 , 000 . 00 , the median is $43 , 000 . 00 , with a mode of $50 . 000 . 00 . The minimum yea rly inc ome is $9 , 000 . 00 ; the maximum i s $250 , 000.00, wit h a ra ng e o f $241 , 000 . 00 13 . Victimization 14 Table 10 contains a frequency table of vi c timizati on o f Madison and D. C. Respondents and , or t heir family membe rs . Fifty-five percent of all Respondents report some type of victimization , either personal , property , or personal and property crimes either for self15 or for a family member 1 6 ? These crimes were then analyzed as either a misdemeanor crime17 or a f e lony cri?m , e 18 . Be li ef in t he Use of New Concealed Weapons Detection Technology Table 11 contains demographic frequency tabl e s of Madison a nd D. C. Respondents ' belief regarding use of n w Concealed Weapons Detection Technology by police officers . 209 S 9 THROUGH 11 TABLE NTS OF MADISON AND D. C. RESPONDE YEARLY INCOME YEARLY INCOME COME ME GROUPED OF YEARLY IN YEARLY INCO AND OF MADIS ON ADISON OF MADISON M C. D.C. AND D. AND D.C. NTS RESPONDE NTS RESPONDE RESPONDENTS 0 63 10 63 N Valid 0 37 Missing 37 $48,555.5556 .7800 Mean $48,555 .5556 1.0000 $43,000 .0000 Median $43,00 0.0000 00 1.00 $50,000 . 00 Mode $50,0 00. 2.00 $241 ,00 0.00 ge $241 ,000.0 0 Ran $9,000.00 .00 0 Minimum $9, 000.0 2.00 $250,0 00.00 Maximum $250, 000.00 . RESPONDENTS ME GROUPED OF M ADISON AND D.C YEARLY INCO Cumulative t Valid Percen t Percent Frequency P ercen 37.0 37.0 INCOME 37 37.0 Valid STUDENT OR FIXE D 85.0 48.0 4 8.0 HIGH/MIDDLE INCO ME - 48 $30,000.00 or more 15.0 100.0 0 LOW INCOME - Les s than 15 15. $30,000.00 100 100. 0 100.0 Total T ABLE 9b 210 YEARLY INCOME OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS Freauency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid $9,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 1.6 $13.000 00 2 2.0 3.2 4.8 $15.000.00 1 1.0 1.6 6.3 $17,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 7.9 $20,000.00 8 8.0 12.7 20.6 $25,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 22.2 $26,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 23.8 $30,000.00 5 5.0 7.9 31 .7 $34.000.00 1 1.0 1.6 33.3 $35,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 34.9 $36 ,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 36.5 $40,000.00 7 7.0 11 .1 47 .6 $42,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 49.2 $43,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 50.8 $50,000.00 18 18.0 28.6 79.4 $55,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 81 .0 $56,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 82.5 $60,000 .00 3 3.0 4.8 87.3 $70.000.00 1 1.0 1.6 88 .9 $75,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 90.5 $80,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 92.1 $95,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 93.7 $100,000.00 2 2.0 3.2 96.8 $200,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 98.4 $250,000.00 1 1.0 1.6 100.0 Total 63 63.0 100.0 Missing $.00 37 37.0 Total 100 100.0 TABLE 9c VICTIMIZATION OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS AND OR A FAMILY MEMBER Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid YES 55 55.0 55.0 55.0 NO 45 45.0 45.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 10a MADISON RESPONDENTS VICTIM OF SOME CRIME Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid YES 17 34.0 34.0 34.0 NO 33 66.0 66.0 100.0 Total 50 100.0 100.0 TABLE 10b 211 ESPONDENT VICTIM OF CRIME WASHINGTON, D.C. R Cumulative ent Percent Valid P ercent Perc Freauencv 0 56.0 56.0 Valid YES 28 56. 100.0 22 44.0 44 .0 NO 100.0 Total 50 100 .0 TABLE10c ILY MEMBER A VICT IM OF CRIME MADISON RESPOND ENTS' FAM Cumulative rcent Percen t Freauencv Percen t Valid Pe 30.0 30.0 Valid YES 15 30 .0 0.0 100.0 7 NO 35 70 .0 l 50 100.0 100.0 Tota TABLE 10d FAMILY MEMBER VI CTIM OF CRIME WASHINGTON, D.C. Cumulative t lid Percent P ercen Freauencv Percen t Va 34.0 34 .0 Valid YES 17 34 .0 6.0 100.0 6 NO 33 66 .0 100.0 Total 50 1 00.0 TABLE 10e WEAPONS DETECTO R LED ENTS BELIEVE NEW CONCEA MADISON AND D.C. RESPOND MENDMENT RIGHTS TECHNOLOGY INFR INGES FOURTH A Cumulative ent Percent Pe rc Frequency Percen t Valid 9.0 49. 0 ~ 4 Valid YES 49 49 .0 0 51 .0 100. NO 51 51 .0 .0 al 100 100. 0 100 Tot TABLE 11a IR FOURTH AMENDM ENT WOULD FORFEIT T HE MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS D WEAPONS DETEC TOR TECHNOLOGY IONAL RIGHT FOR N EW CONCEALE CONSTITUT Cumulative lid Percent P ercent Va Freauencv Perc ent 2.0 62. 0 ~ 6 Valid YES 62 62 .0 .0 100.0 38 NO 38 3 8.0 100.0 Total 100 1 00.0 TABLE 11b CONCEALED WEAP ONS DETECTOR LIEVE NEW N AND D.C. RESPON DENTS BE Y TO POLICE OFFICE RS TO HELP MADISO ELIVERED IMMEDIAT EL TEC HNOLOGY SHO ULD BE D LENCE FIGHT CRIME AND V IO Cumulative ercent Perce nt Valid P Freauencv Perce nt .0 82.0 Valid ES 82 82.0 82 Y 100.0 18 18.0 18.0 NO 0.0 otal 100 100.0 10 T ~ TABLE 11c 2 12 There were several research questi ons of interest to the study regarding the Respondents' opinions. The research questions were : 1 . ) Whether using Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would infringe on people ' s Constitutional rights 19 ? Fifty-one percent of the Respondents believe that it wo uld not , 2 . ) Whether they would give up that Constitutional ri ght if they tho ught doing so would decrease crime . Sixty-two percent of the Respondents would forfeit that right even if it infringed on their Constitutional rights , and 3 . ) Whet her police officers should be permitted i mmediately to us e Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . An overwhelming 82 percent of the Respondents believed they s h ou ld be 20 ? Belief in Where the New Concealed Weapons Detecti o n Technology Should Be Located21 Table 12 contains demographic frequency tables of Madison and D. C. Respondents ' belief regarding where the new Concea l ed Weapons Detection Technology should be located22 ? The D. C . and Madison Respondents were asked where they would want Co ncealed Weapons Detection Technology located o ther than on police officers ' persons , if its use wer e permitted . Th e c hoices given to the Respondents included , 213 subway statio ns , 2 3 ourthouses , su bways , i n "airports , C o t s , on n high school s, in bus dep , i t r a ins, train stations i n youth - ori e nte d places 2 4 , s es , i n banks , in trave l bu uses , in bars and ge c amp ementa r y scho ols , on coll e e l ng malls , in m ovie s, in all stor es and shoppi n i ght c lub ealth spas , in , in public li braries , in h t h e atres s churches a nd o ther religiou r e staurants , in e areas only ." 25 a nd in h i gh cr im insti tutions , ondents a ll Madison a nd D. C. Resp of Over 50 perce nt etection Techn ology ealed Weapons D wanted the new Conc the following : ted except for at e d in all p laces sugges loc dents would wa nt nt of t he Madi son Respon perce Less than 50 l ocated in Detection Tech nology the new Conce aled Weapon s restaurants (4 1 9 percent) , in in public libr aries (4 institutions rches and othe r religious Percent) , in ch u in high crime areas lt h spas (38 p ercent) , and 4 ( 0 %) , in hea only (4 %) . TABLES 12 DETECTOR LOCA TED IN HIGI- T ON AND D.C. RES PONDENTS WAN l'IADIS CRIME AREAS ON LY Cumulative Percen t t Freauency Percent V alid Percen 96.0 96.0 Valid NO 96 96.0 100.0 .0 4.0 YES 4 4 Total 100 100.0 100.0 S LOCATED IN AIR PORT: SPONDENTS WAN T DETECTOR IADISON AND D.C . RE umulative Percent nt C Freauencv Percent V alid Perce 15.0 5.0 15.0 Valid NO 15 1 100.0 .0 85.0 YES 85 85 100.0 Total 100 100.0 2 1 4 DETECTORS LOCA TED IN BU! PONDENTS WANT MDISON AND D,C . RES DEPOTS umulative Percent Freauencv Percent Valid Percent C 0 24.0 . Valid 4 NO 24 24 .0 2 0 100.0 76. YES 76 76.0 Tata/ 100 100.0 100.0 CTORS LOCATED I N ONDENTS WANT D ETE MADISON AND D.C . RESP TRAVEL BUSES Cumulative Percent Freauencv Percent Va lid Percent 24.0 Va lid NO 24 24.0 24.0 0.0 76.0 76.0 10 YES 76 l 00 100.0 10 0.0 Tota 1 IN ANT DETECTORS L OCATED DISON AND D.C. R ESPONDENTS W MA TRAIN STATIONS Percent Cumulativ e Percent Freauencv Percent Val id 21.0 Valid NO 2 1 21 .0 21.0 100.0 79.0 79 .0 YES 79 100.0 Total 100 100.0 TED ON TRAIN: PONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCA IADISON AND D.C. RES Percent Cumulat ive Percent Freauencv Percent Va lid 21.0 Valid NO 21 21 .0 21 .0 0 1 00.0 79. YES 79 79.0 00.0 Total 100 100.0 1 TECTORS LOCATE D IN WANT DE MADISON AND D.C . RESPONDENTS SUBWAY STATION S rcent Cumulativ e Percent Frequencv Percent Val id Pe 24.0 Valid NO 24 24.0 24 .0 100.0 76.0 76.0 YES 76 l 1 00.0 Tota 100 100.0 ANT DETECTORS L OCATED ON RESPONDENTS W MADISON AND D.C . SUBWAYS ercent Cumulativ e Percent P Freauencv Percent Va lid 24.0 .0 Va/id 24 NO 24 24.0 100.0 76.0 76 .0 YES 76 Total 100 100.0 100.0 IN NT DETECTORS LO CATED DISON AND D.C. R ESPONDENTS WA MA YOUTH-ORIENTED PLACES Percent Cumulat ive Percent lid Freauencv Percent Va 33.0 lid 33.0 33.0 Va NO 33 100.0 67.0 YES 67 67.0 00.0 - Tata/ 1 100 100.0 2 15 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN MOVIE THEATRES Cumulative Percent Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Valid NO 47 47.0 47.0 47.0 100.0 YES 53 53.0 53.0 Total 100 100.0 100 0 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDNTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN RESTAURANTS - Cumulative Percent - Freauencv Percent Valid Percent 59.0 Valid NO 59 59.0 59.0 100.0 YES 41 41 .0 41 .0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 ' MADIOSN AND D,C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN BARS AND NIGHT CLUBS - Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 38.0 Valid NO 38 38.0 38.0 100.0 YES 62 62.0 62.0 Total 100 100.0 100 0 VIADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN ALI STORES - Cumulative Percent Frenuencv Percent Valid Percent 48.0 Valid NO 48 48.0 48.0 100.0 YES 52 52.0 52.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MDISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN BANK Cumulative Percent Freauencv Percent Valid Percent 24.0 Valid NO 24 24.0 24.0 100.0 YES 76 76.0 76.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN HEALTH SPAS Freauencv Percent Valid Perc C e un mt ulative Percent 62.0 Valid NO 62 62.0 62.0 100.0 YES 38 38.0 38.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS Valid Per Cce un mt ulative Percent Freouencv Percent 38.0 Valid NO 38 38.0 38.0 100.0 YES 6 62.0 6 2 2 .0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 21 6 IADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN HIGI SCHOOLS Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid NO 19 19.0 19.0 19.0 YES 81 81 .0 81 .0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MADISON ANO D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid NO 37 37.0 37.0 37.0 YES 63 63.0 63.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MADISON AND O.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Va lid NO 60 60.0 60.0 60.0 YES 40 40.0 40.0 100 0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WANT DETECTORS LOCATED IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid NO 51 51 .0 51.0 51 .0 YES 49 49.0 49.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 Belief in Who Shou ld have Control Over t he Use of he Ne w Concea l e d Weapon s Detection Technology Tab l e 13 contains a d emographi c frequency table reflecting Madi son an d D. C . Respondents ' belief in wh o s h ou ld h ave control over pol i ce off i cers ' use of t he ne w Concealed Weap ons De tection Te c hnology . Specifica lly , the opinion sough t of the Respondents was wh o s hould have control over wh e n , where , and how the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology is used , if its use were permitted . The op tions given were : individual votes initiated by referendum , per Stat e , the Federal Government , the State Governme nt , or the Courts on a case-by-case basis . The 2 17 Responde nts op ined 33 percent of the time that individual votes initiated by referendum , per State , should have control , 30 percent b e lieved that the Federal Government s h ould have control , 19 p ercent stated that the State Government s h o uld have contro l, 14 percent indicated that the Courts should have control , o n a case-by-case basis , 26 and 4 percent h a d n o preference ? TABLE 13 .C. RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IN WHO SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW CONCEALED WE APONS MADISON AND D DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid STATE GOVERNMENT 19 19.0 19.0 1 9 0 COURTS, ON A CASE-BY-CASE 14 14 0 14.0 33.0 BASIS INDIVIDUALS VOTE BY 33 33.0 33.0 66.0 REFERENDUMS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 30 30.0 30.0 96.0 NO PREFERENCE 4 4.0 4.0 10 0.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 TABLE 13 Table 14 contains demographic frequency tables that r fleet Madison a nd D. C. Respondents ' self-reported fear of cr ime . This n e xt portion of the survey asked Madi son and D. C . Respondents to recount a nd to evaluate their fear of crim Forty-eight percent of the Madison and D. C . Respondents fear being a victim of crime 27 ? Fear of Crime for Family Members Madison and D. C . Respondents were asked wh e ther they fear a family me mber b e ing a victim of crime . Forty -four 2 1 8 percent of the Respondents fe ar a family member being a victim of crime28 ? TABLE 14 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS FEAR BEING A VICTIM OF CRIME Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Va lid YES 48 48.0 48.0 48.0 NO 52 52.0 52.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 RIME MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS FEAR A FAMILY MEMBER BEING A VICT IM OF C Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid YES 44 44.0 44 .0 44.0 NO 56 56.0 56.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MADISON RESPONDENTS FEAR BEING A VICTIM OF CRIME Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid YES 22 22.0 44 .0 44 . 0 NO 28 28.0 56.0 100.0 Tota l 50 50.0 100.0 Missing System 50 50.0 Tota l 100 100.0 D.C. RESPONDENTS FEAR BEING A VICTIM OF CRIME Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent P ercent .0 Valid 52 YES 26 26.0 52.0 4 24.0 48 ,0 10 0.0 NO 2 Total 50 50.0 100.0 Missing System 50 50.0 Tota l 100 100.0 MADISON RESPONDENT FEAR FAMILY MEMBER BEING A VICTIM OF CRIME Cumulative Frequency Percent Valid Percent Pe rcent Valid 50 50.0 50.0 50.0 0 YES 68. 18 18.0 18.0 NO 32 32.0 32.0 100 0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 2 1 9 D.C. RESPONDENT FEAR FAMILY MEMBER MAY BECOME A VICTIM OF CRIME Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid 50 50.0 50.0 50.0 YES 26 26.0 26.0 76.0 NO 24 24 .0 24.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS FEAR CRIME VICTIMIZATION FOR SELF OR FAMILY MEMBER Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid YES 56 56.0 56.0 56.0 NO 44 44 .0 44 .0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 VICTIMIZATION OF MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS AND OR A FAMILY MEMBER Cumulative Freauencv Percent Valid Percent Percent Valid YES 55 55.0 55.0 55.0 NO 45 45.0 45.0 100.0 Total 100 100.0 100.0 Those Respondents who acknowledged fear of some s o rt were asked where are they fearful , what time of day are th e y fearful , what crime do they fear the most, and to r a te the ir fear as very fearf ul , moderately fearful , o r hardly fearful 2 9 . Factors of Fear30 Age The Respondents for both Ma di son and D. C. identifi e d t h e age range they most fear . Th e age ra nge cat e gori s presented in years in the study are 4 to 14 , 15 to 2 5 , 2 6 to 36 , 37 to 47 , and 48 and over . Sixty-one percent of the Madison Respondents wh o f e ar personal vict imization fear most the age range o f 15 o 25 years . This age range is reported in other researc h als o , 220 as the most feared 3 1 ? Fifty-four percent of the Madison Respondents who fear property victimization also most fear t he age range of 15 to 25 years. Approximately 65 percent o f the D. C . Respondents who fear personal victimization most fear the age range of 15 to 25 years . Sixty percent of t h e D. C . Respondents who fear property victimization also most fear the age range of 15 to 25 years. Time of Day The Madis o n and D. C. Respondents who fear victimizati o n were asked to identify the time of day they most fear victimi zation for themselves . The times of day from which to select was morning, afternoon, evening , past midnight , and any time of the day or night . The more frequent time of day selected by approximat e ly 62 percent of the Madison Responde nts is past midnight . The more frequent time of day selected by approx imately 65 percent of the D. C. Respondents is eveni ng . Crime Most Feared The Respondents of Madison and D. C. wer e asked to rank the crime they fear for themselves from 1 to 13 with 1 representing the crime they fear the most and 13 the crime they fear the least . The crime categories the study listed were : murder , robbery , burglary , rape , assault , carjacking , and drive-by shooting . These main categories had 221 subcategories that included the crime being committed with o r without a concealed wea p on . As an example would be a c ategory of murder , and the subcategories would be with a c oncealed weapon , or without a concea led weapon . Bo th Madison and D. C . Respondents selected o n ly the subca egories , the crimes committed with a concealed weapon . The crime most feared by 32 percent of Madison Respondents i s murder with a concealed weapon . The crime most feared by 29 percent of D. C. Respondents is robbery wit h a concea l ed weap on . Wh ere Fearful Of Victimization Madison and D. C . Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were fearful of victimization in various locations . These locations were : high crime areas only , the ir h ome , their ne ighborhood , airports , bus depots , o n trav e l bu ses , as opposed to city buses , in train stations I on trains , in subway stations , on subways , in youth- or iented places , in courthouses , in movi e theatres , in restaurants , in bars and night clubs , in all stores , in banks , in heal th spas , in elementary schools , in high schools , on co llege campuses , in c hurc hes and other religious institutions , in publi c libraries , on heir job , a nd in parking lots . Less than 30 percen of all Madison Respondents report fear in any one particular location . 222 Ho wever , 80 percent of the D. C . Respondents reported fear in o ne particular location . The most feared location for Madison Respondents (28 perc ent) is in their neighborhood . The most feared location for D. C . Respondents (80 percent) is in high schools . This response may reflect the rate of school crimes in D. C . as opposed to school crimes in Madison . Moreover , it may reflect the Respondents ' awareness , as reported by previous research in the study , of the crimes actually being committed in their respective City . ANALYSES The strategy for analysis was to present the bivariate associations bet ween the relevan t independent variables and the dependent variable --voluntary forfeiture of a Constitutional right for the use of the n e w Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Crosstabs are us ed for the limited purpose of quantifying the strength and nature of the relationships between the dependent variable and the independ ent variables . Inasmuch as the variables for th most part are measured on a nominal scale , the study used Chi-Square (X2 ) a nd Pearson ' s (r) and Spearman ' s (r 5 ) correlations as measures of association to determine whether t here is a statistically significant relationship , and the strength and direction (posit ive or negative) of 223 a n y re la t i onship. Unless otherwise indicated , findings are s t atistical l y significant at the a= 0 . 05 level. Th e null hypotheses and alternative null hypothe s e s were se l ec e d prior t o the study. The variables we r e selected t o identify subpopulations that influence t h e u se o f the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology. In addition , variables were selected to determine subpopulations that would influence voluntary forfeiture of a Fo urth Amendment right in favor of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology (hereinafter sometimes referred to as " CWDT " ) . Hypotheses were developed based on the variables and factors of gender , race , age , neighborhood , vi ct imi zation , income and locate . Table 15 contains statistically significant Chi-Square (X2 ) crosstab tables . Wh e n statistically significant , Pearson ' s (r) and Spearman ' s (rs) correlations tables als o are shown to depict the strength of the association betwee n the dependent variable and a specific independent variable . Statistically significant association s were found between the dependent variable , voluntary forfeiture of th e Fo urth Amendment Constitutional right for the new Concea l e d Weapons Detection Technology , and five of the independe nt variables used in the study . 224 Belief that the New concealed Weapons Detection Technology Should be Delivered Immediately to Police Officers The association between the dependent variable voluntary forfeiture and the independent variable belief that the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology should be delivered i mmediately to police officers to help fight crime and violence was statistically significant at the a = 0 . 001 level for a (2 t - test , x2 (DF=l) , a = 0 . 000) value The null hypot o hf e s1 is4 . t7 h4 a2 t. there is no difference between those who believe and those who do not believe that the new Concealed weapons Detection Technology should be delivered immediately to police officers to help fight crime and violence is rejected . Of those Respondent who so believe , 70 . 7 % would forfeit their Constitutional right for the new CWDT . It appears t hat t hose who believe in delivering the technology are more likely to forfeit voluntarily their The strength and directi C oo nn s ot fi t tu ht eio nal right . association as determined by Pearson ' s (a = 0 . 000) and Spearman ' s (a= 0 . 000) correlations indicate a value of . 384 , respectively , at the a = 0 . 001 level . This indicates an approximate value of . 40 . A value of . 40 indicates a moderately strong positive relationship between the depende Tn ht i s variabl e and the inde pendent variable . 225 is a fairly strong indication that i ndividuals want more pro tection from crime , and believe that police officers s h o uld be provided with t he necessary equipment to provide t hat protect ion . These correlations are consistent with values reported in the literature reviewed for the study 32 . TABLE 15A MADISON AND D. C . RESPONDENTS BELIEVE NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TEC HNOLOGY SHOULD BE DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY TO POLICE OFFICERS TO HELP FIGHT CRIME AND VIOLENCE* MADISON AND D. C . RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTION TEC HN OLOGY 226 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY YES NO Total MADISON AND D.C. YES Count 58 24 82 RESPONDENTS BELIEVE % with in MADISON AND D.C. NEW CONCEALED RESPONDENTS BELIEVE NEW WEAPONS DETECTOR CONCEALED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY SHOULD BE DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY 29.3% 100.0% DELIVERED IMMEDIATE LY TO 70.7% SHOULD BE DELIVERED POLICE OFFICERS TO HELP IMMEDIATELY TO POLICE FIGHT CRIME AND VIOLENCE OFFICERS TO HELP FIGHT CRIME AND VIOLENCE % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 93.5% 63.2% 82.0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Tota l 58.0% 24 .0% 82.0% NO Count 4 14 18 % with in MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS BELIEVE NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY 22.2% 77.8% 100.0% SHOULD BE DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY TO POLICE OFFICERS TO HELP FIGHT CR IME AND VIOLENCE % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 6.5% 36.8% 18.0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 4.0% 14.0% 18.0% Tota l Count 62 38 100 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS BELI EVE NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY 62.0% 38.0% 100.0% SHOULD BE DELIVERED IMMEDIATELY TO POLICE OFFICERS TO HELP FIGHT CRIME AND VIOLENCE % with in MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 62.0% 38.0% 100.0% 227 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Va lue df !2-sidedl Exact Sia. /2-sidedl Exact Sia. /1 -sidedl Pearson Chi-Square 14.742? 1 .000 Continuity Correction a 12.755 1 .000 Likelihood Ratio 14.599 1 .000 Fisher's Exact Test .000 .000 Linear-by-Linear 14.595 1 .000 Association N of Valid Cases 100 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. O cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.84. Symmetric Measures Value Asvmo. Std. Error Aoorox. T Aoorox. Sio. Interva l by Interval Pearson's R .384 .093 4.117 .oooc Ordinal by Spearman C .384 .093 4.11 7 .000 Ordinal Correlation N of Va lid Cases 100 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Belief the New Concealed Weapons Det ection Technology Infringes a Person ' s Fourth Amendment Right The associat ion between th e dependent variable vol untary forfeiture a n d the indepe nde nt variable belief t hat the n e w Concealed Weapons Detect ion Te c hno l ogy does not infringe a pers o n ' s Fourth Amendme nt right wa s s tatistical ly significant at the a= 0 _01 level for a (2t - test , x2 (DF=l ) a= 0 _009) value of 6 . 914 . The strength a nd direct ion of t h e association as determined by Pearson ' s va l ue of -. 2 63 (a= 0 . 00 8 ) and Spearman' s value o f - . 263 (a= 0 . 008) correlations indicate a n e gat ive (belief t hat t h e new technology does not infringe one ' s r ights) assoc i a tion at the a = 0 . 01 l evel. Thi s indicates an a pproximat e negative value of . 30 . A value of . 30 228 ative relationship bet ween th e ndicates a moderate , neg i t variable. The null enden dependent variable an d the indep e is no difference be tween those who hypothesis that ther ge and those who beli eve t infrin believe the CWDT does no endment right, e CWDT does infringe a person ' s Fourth Am t h se ll forfeit that right is rejected. Of tho Yet would sti CWDT would infringe o n a espondents who bel ieve the new R 9 %) would rson ' s Constit utional right , almost 50% (4 pe CWDT . Vo l untarily forfeit t hat right for the n ew that those who believ e that the new It appears 4 . 5 %) one ' s Constitut ional technology does not i nfringe (7 rily their right are more like ly to forfeit volunta who believe it does than are those Constitutional right , at right . The infringe but would vo luntarily forfeit th s consistent with fea r of crime values correlation i dy 33 ? in the literature re searched for the stu reported fringement with fear . lat es in The instant study cor re inding the n ew CWDT a n That is to say , for t he study , not f one ' s Constitutional rights equates with infringement of etween ere is a correlation b fear . The study foun d that th se wh o would forfeit their those who fear c rime and tho ght to help prevent c rime if they thought Constituti onal ri . doing so would decrea se crime 229 TABLE 15B D.C . RESPONDENTS BELI EVE NEW CONCEALED MADISON AND S FOURTH WEAPONS DETECTOR TECH NOLOGY INFRINGE AMENDMENT RIGHTS* WOULD FORFEIT THEIR MADISON AND D.C . RESP ONDENTS ENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIG HT FOR NEW FOURTH AMENDM CHNOLOGY CONCEALED WEAPON S DET ECTION TE 23 0 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TEC HNOLOGY YES NO Total MADISON AND D.C. YES Count 24 25 49 RESPONDENTS BELIEVE % within MADISON AND D.C. NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS RESPONDENTS BELIEVE NEW DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY CONCEALED WEAPONS 49.0% 51 .0% 100.0% INFRINGES FOURTH DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY AMENDMENT RIGHTS INFRINGES FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 38.7% 65.8% 49.0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 24.0% 25.0% 49.0% Count 38 13 51 NO % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS BELIEVE NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS 74 .5% 25.5% 100.0% DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY INFRINGES FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 61 .3% 34 .2% 51 .0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 38.0% 13.0% 51 .0% 38 100 Total Count 62 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS BELIEVE NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS 62.0% 38 .0% 100.0% DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY INFRINGES FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPON S DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 62.0% 38 .0% 100.0% 23 1 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Exact Siq_ (2-sided) Exact Siq _( 1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.91 4? 1 .009 Continuity Correction a 5.872 1 .015 Likelihood Ratio 7.004 1 .008 F ,sher's Exact Test .013 .007 Linear-by-Linear 6.844 1 .009 Association N of Val!d Cases 100 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.62. Symmetric Measures Value Asvmo. Std. Error Aoorox. r Approx. Siq . Interval by Interval Pearson's R -.263 .096 -2.698 .008c Ordinal by Spearman C -.263 .096 -2.698 .008 Ordinal Correlation N of Valid Cases 100 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Belief in Who Should Con t ro l the Use of the Ne w Concea led Weapons Detection Technology The associa tion between the dependent variable voluntary forfeiture and the independent variable belief in who should con trol the use of the ne w Concealed Weapons Detection Technology was statistically significant at the a = 0 . 01 level for a (2 t-test , X 2 (DF=l) a = 0 . 002) value of 17 . 024 . However , the strength and direction of the association as determin e d by Pearson ' s (a= 0 . 067) and Spearman ' s (a = 0 . 144) correlations i ndicate a positive almost negligible , statistically significant Pearson value of . 184 (at an a lpha level of 0 . 10) , and a positive weak statistically insignificant Spearman ' s val ue of .14 7 . Based on the Chi - Square value , the null hypothesi s that 232 t here is no difference between voluntary forfeiture and th o s e wh o believe that the Federal Government should c ontrol , or hose who believe individuals by vote by referendum should control the use , or those who believe State Government should control , or those who believe Courts on a case-by- case basis should control the use of t he new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology is rejected . It appears that those who believe the State Government (89 . 5 %) should contro l are mor e likely to forfeit voluntarily their Constitutional right . The correlation is c onsistent with values reported in the literature researched for t he study 34 . TABLE lSC MADISON AND D. C . RESPONDENTS ' BELIEF IN WHO SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTION TECHNOLOGY* MADI SON AND D. C . RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTION TECHN OLOGY 233 MADISON AND D C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR Statistics YES NO Total MADISON AND D.C STATE GOVERNMENT Count 17 2 19 RESPONDENTS' BELIEF % w1th1n MADISON ANO D.C . IN WHO SHOULD RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IN WHO CONTROL USE OF NEW SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW 89.: 10.: 100 CONCEALED WEAPONS CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY % within MADISON AND D.C RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 27 5. 19 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS nFTFr.TnR TF(':HN()I nr,v % of Total 17.1 2.1 19 COURTS. ON A Count 5 9 14 CASE-BY-CASE BASIS % wi thin MADISON AND D.C RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IN WHO SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW 35. 64 . 100. CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECH NOLOGY % within MADISON AND D.C RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 8. 23. 14. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS nFTFf':T{)R n=r.HNn l nr,v % of Total 5.1 9.1 14. INDIVIDUALS VOTE BY Count 20 13 33 REFERENDUMS % within MADISON AND D.C RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IN WHO SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW 60. 39. 100. CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 32. 34. 33. CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS nFTFr.TnR TFf':HN ()I nr,v % of Total 20.1 13 33. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Count 20 10 30 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IN WHO SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW 66 33 100. CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % within MADISON AND D.C RESPONDE NTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 32. 26. 30 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS nFT Fr.Tn R TFr.HN OI nr,v % of Total 20 I 10.1 30. NO PREFERENCE Count 4 4 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IN WHO SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW 100. 100. CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % within MADISON AND D.C RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 10. 4 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED W EAPONS nFTFf':T{)R T Fr.HN{)I ~y % of Total 4.1 4. Total Count 62 38 100 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS' BELIEF IN WHO SHOULD CONTROL USE OF NEW 62. 38. 100. CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % within MADISON AND D C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 100 C 100 C 100 CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS nFTFr.TnR n =r:HN()I n~v % of Total 62.1 381 100 234 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 17.024" 4 .002 Likelihood Ratio 19.334 4 .001 Linear-by-Linear 3.339 1 068 Association N of Valid Cases 100 a. 2 cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.52. Symmetric Measures Value Asymp. Std. Error Approx. T Approx. Siq. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .184 .091 1.849 .067c Ordinal by Spearman C Ordinal .147 .097 1.472 .144 Correlation N of Valid Cases 100 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis. c. Based on normal approximation. Fear of Crime Victimization for Self or Family The association betwee n the d e pendent variable vol untary fo rfe iture and the inde p e ndent variabl e fea r of crime v i ctimizat i on for self a nd or famil y members was statistically significant at the a = 0 .1 0 level for a (2 t - test , x2 (DF=l) a = 0 . 076) value of 3 .1 56 . The strength and directio n of the association as determined by earson ' s va lu e of . 178 (a= 0 . 077) and Spearman ' s value of . 178 (a = 0 . 077) correlations indicate a wea k , positive statist i cal ly significant value at the 0 . 10 level . Based on t he Chi - Squa re value the null hypothesis that there is no difference between voluntary forfeit ure and those wh o fear vict imizatio n and those wh o d o not fear victimization is rejected . 235 It appears t ha t those who fear victimization for self a nd or fa mil y members (69 . 6%) are more likely to forfeit volun tarily t heir Constituti onal right . Thes e correlations 35 are consis tent wi t h val ues reported in t h e literature referenced for the study . TABLE 150 MADISON AND D. C. RESPONDENTS FEAR CR IME VICTIMIZATION FOR SELF OR FAMILY MEMBER MADISON AND D. C . RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CO NCEALED WEAPONS DETECTION TECHNOLOGY 236 MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOU LD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECH NOLOGY YES NO Total MADISON AND D.C. YES Count 39 17 56 RESPONDENTS FEAR % with in MADISON AND D.C. CRIME VICTIMIZATION FOR RESPONDENTS FEAR CRIME SELF OR FAMILY MEMBER 69.6% 30.4% 100.0% VICTIMIZATION FOR SELF OR FAMILY MEMBER % with in MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOU LD FORFEIT TH EIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 62.9% 44.7% 56.0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED W EAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 39.0% 17.0% 56.0% NO Count 23 21 44 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS FEAR CRIME 52.3% 47 .7% 100.0% VICTIMIZATION FOR SELF OR FAMILY MEMBER % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT TH EIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CO NSTITUTIONAL 37.1% 55.3% 44 .0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 23.0% 21.0% 44.0% Total Count 62 38 100 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS FEAR CRIME 62.0% 38.0% 100.0% VICTIMIZATION FOR SELF OR FAMILY MEMBER % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 62.0% 38.0% 100.0% 237 Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Value df (2-sided\ Exact Sia. (2-sided) Exact Siq. (1-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 3.156u 1 .076 Cont1nu1ty Correction a 2.461 1 .11 7 Likelihood Ratio 3 154 1 .076 Fisher's Exact Test 098 058 Linear-by-Linear 3.124 1 .077 Association N of Valid Cases 100 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. O cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.72. Symmetric Measures Value Asvmo. Std. Error' Aoorox. T Approx. Siq. Interval by Interval Pearson's R .178 .099 1.787 .one Ordinal by Spearman C 178 .099 1.787 .077 Ordinal Correlation N of Valid Cases 100 a. Not assuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis . c. Based on normal approximation. Belief that Curfews Reduce Nati ona l Crime Th e independent var i able , beli e f that curfews reduce National crime was stat i stically significant at the a = 0 _01 level for a (2t - test , x2 (DF=l) a = 0 . 009) value of 6 . 794 . The strength a nd direction of the association as determined by Pearson ' s (a = 0.009) and Spearman ' s (a = 0 . 009) correlations value of . 26 1 , respectively , indicates a positive value at the a = 0.01 level . This indica es an approximate value of . 3 0 . A value of . 30 indicat e s a moderate , positive relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable . The null hypot hesis that there is no difference betwee n those who believe that curfews reduce National crime and those who do not believe 238 l crime and voluntary for feiture that curfews reduce Nati ona is rejected . lieve that c urfe ws reduce It appears t hat those wh o be ore likely to forfeit National crime (73 . 2%) a re m is rily their Constitutional right. The correlation volunta 36 with va lues reported in t he prior literature consisten t referenced in the study . TABLE 15E THAT CURFEWS REDUCE MADISON AND D. C. RESPOND ENTS ' BELIEF S WOULD FORFEIT NATIONAL CR IME MADISON AN D O. C. RESPONDENT AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR THE NEW THEIR FOURTH HNOLOGY CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECT ION TEC 23 9 MADISON AND D C RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY YES NO Total MAD ISON AND D.C. YES Count 41 15 56 RESPONDENTS' BELIEF % within MADISON AND D.C. THAT CURFEWS REDUCE RESPONDENTS' BELIEF THAT NATIONAL CRIME CURFEWS REDUCE NATIONAL 73.2% 26.8% 100.0% CRIME % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 66.1% 39.5% 56.0% CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 41 .0% 15.0% 56.0% NO Count 21 23 44 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS' BELIEF THAT 47.7% CURFEWS REDUCE NATIONAL 52.3% 100.0% CRIME % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 33.9% 60.5% 44 .0% CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECH NOLOGY % of Total 21.0% 23.0% 44 .0% Total Count 62 38 100 % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENT~BELIEFTHAT 62.0% CURFEWS REDUCE NATIONAL 38.0% 100.0% CRIME % within MADISON AND D.C. RESPONDENTS WOULD FORFEIT THEIR FOURTH AMENDMENT 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% CON STITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY % of Total 62.0% 38.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. Exact Sig. Value df (2-sided) (2-sidedl (1 -sided) Pearson Chi-Square 6.794? 1 .009 Continuity Correction a 5.755 1 .016 Likelihood Ratio 6.822 1 .009 Fisher's Exact Test .013 .008 Linear-by-Linear Association 6.726 1 .010 N of Valid Cases 100 a. Computed only for a 2x2 table b. O cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.72 . 240 Symmetric Measures Asymp. Std. lue Error? App rox. r' Approx. Sio. Va .097 2.673 .009c Interva l by Interval Pearson's R .261 1 .097 2.6 73 .009c Ordinal by Ordinal Spearman Correlation .26 100 N of Valid Cases a. Not assuming the null hypothesis . ssuming the null hypothesis. b. Using the asymptotic standard er ror a c. Based on normal approximation. HYPOTHE SES Research Question One: Gen der of the relationsh ip of an What will be the extent ' s gender and vo luntary fo rfeiture of a individual Constitutiona l right? Results will corre l ate equally to the An individual ' s gender ional var iable voluntary forfeit ure of one ' s Constitut rection for the rights . Th e st udy did not predi ct a di hes i s whether wome n or men were more alternat i ve hypot right for the new likely to forfeit t h e ir C onstitutional e d Weapons Detect ion Techn o l ogy . Th e studi es Concea l tudy reveal consistently c ontradictory research e d for the s n attacked , however , women are facts- -me n are t h e most of t e 37 s upposedl y t h e most fearfu l ? lts 38 Madison an d D. C. Resu d Fifty percent (50 %) of the Respondents are Male , an he study finds that of all Madison 50 percent is Female . T forfeit their Constitution al D. C. Respondents wh o would a nd t is right by gender , 44 percen t is Ma l es , and 56 percen 241 Females . The null hypothesis is rejected . Me n and women are not equal ly willing to forfeit their Constitutional right. Women are more likely than men are to forfeit their Co nstitutional right. Moreover , within the genders of the total popula tion of Madison and D. C . Respondents , of the Female Respondents, 68 percent would forfeit their Constitutional right , and 32 percent would not . Of all Madison and D. C . Male Respondents , 54 percent would forfeit their right , and 46 percent would not . Again , it appears that the null hypothesis is re jected . Madison and D. C. Male and Female Respondents would not equal ly forfeit their Constitutional right . The Madison a nd D. C . Femal es are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional right than are t he Males . Research Question Two : Race What will be the extent of the relationship of an individual ' s race and voluntary forfeiture of a Constituti onal right? Results An individual ' s race will corre l ate equally to t h e variab l e voluntary forfeit u re of one ' s Constitutional right . Taking into consideration only the Black and Caucasia n races , the stud y did not predict a direction for the alternative hypothesis 39 . The null hypothesis sates 242 t ha t o n e ' s r ace woul d equally determine whether an i ndiv i d ua l wo uld be more likely t o forfeit their Co nstit ut ion a l right for the new Conceal e d We apons De te c tion Techn o l ogy . Six t y- s ix percen t o f Madison and D. C. Ca ucasian Re spo ndents wo u l d forfe i t t heir Constitutiona l right. Approx i mate l y 45 pe r cent of t he Ma l e Res p onde nts would f orf e it t he ir Co nst i t utional r i gh t , a nd approx imately 5 5 perc ent of t h e Fe ma l e Resp ond e nts woul d forfeit their Constitut ion a l r i ght . App r oximate l y 51 percent of a ll Madison a nd D. C . Bl ack Re sponde nts would f o r feit t he i r Co nstit utiona l right . App roximate l y 42 pe r cent is Mal e s , a nd approx imately 58 percent i s Femal e . Th e null hypothesis is rejected . The races differ i n f or fe iture . Ca ucas i a n s a r e mor e l ike l y t ha n Bl ac ks t o fo r fe it the ir Constitutional right . Resea r c h Que sti on Thre e : Age What will be the extent o f the relat i on s hip of a n ind i v idua l ' s age a nd vol un tary forfe i ture of a Con st i t uti o nal right? Result s An individual ' s age will corre late e qually t o t he variabl e v o luntary forf e itu re of one ' s Constitu t i on a l r igh t . 2 43 id not predict a directi on for the The study d thesis inasmuch as prior fear of crime alternative hypo 40 st udies discussing age is contradictory . of e results of the study, however , indicate that Th r th n and D. C. Respondents who would forfeit thei e Madiso roximately 29 percent is the Constitutional right , a pp s of age . Seventy-one Younger Respondents 18 to 30 year the Madison and D. C. old er Respondents over 30 Percent of eir Constitutional righ t to th Years of age would forf eit aled Weapons Detection Promote the use of the new Conce Te c hn o logy . e null hypothesis is rejec ted . Respondents who ar Th e nal right differ in more likely to forfeit their Constitutio e more likely to forfei t ar age . The older Respond ents Respondents . their Constitutional righ t than the younger Research Question Four : Neighborhood ll be the extent of the relationship of an What wi voluntary forfeiture of a d and individual ' s neighborhoo Constitutional right? Results in which an individual lives will The neighborhood voluntary forfeiture of correlate equally to th e variable t a nstitutional right . Th e study did not predic one ' s Co rnative hypothesis altho ugh studies direction for the alte less of a reason t o show that suburban ites reportedly have 244 ear crime than do i nner-city residents 4 1 . For j us t this reaso n, suburbanites may believe that supporting Co ncealed We apons Detection Technology is a way to control inner - city crime. However , crime fear studies report mor e fear in the inner Cities . If this is true , the inner city residents may feel more urgency in legitimizing the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . The study supports these previous findings . Of all Madison and D. C . Respondents , 71 percent live in the inner- ci ty/city and 29 percent live in the suburban/rural area . Of the Madison and D. C . Respondents who would forfeit their Constitutional right , 65 percent of the Respondents live in the inner-city/city area , and approximately 35 percent live in the suburban/rural area . The null hypothesis is rejected . Respondents who live in the inner-city/city , and who live in the s uburba n/ rural areas are not e qually likely to forfeit their Constitutional right . Respondents living in the inner - city/city are more likely to forfeit their Constituti onal right than are suburban/rural Respondents . Research Question Five : Victimization What will be the extent of the relationshi p of an individual ' s history of prior victimization for self or a family me mber a nd voluntary forfeiture of a Cons titutional right? 245 Results l who has been a victim of c rime or whose An individua , and an individual family member has been a vi ctim of crime no previous victimization fo r self or family wh o reports ember will c orrelate equally to the variable voluntary m tional right. The consensus f o rfe iture o f one ' s Constit u ases with prior among empirical studies is that fear incre Victimization . been The study predicted that Re spondents who had ember victimized (62 . 9%) wo uld ictimized or had a family mV forfeit their Constitutiona l right more often than ictimized (37 . 1%) , based on v Respondents who had never b een Previous studies . Fifty-five percent of the Respondents has has been a victim of crime or has a family member who search scholars have been a victim of crime . Social re nces being a violent crime reported , once a person exp erie tim, that person begins to f ear many types of criminal vic 42 ensus is that high fear of c rime Victimization ? The cons prior victimization 43 ? The study supports increases with those findings . Victimization does seem to increase fear in the that within the Respondents in the st udy . The study found tion , those who have been vi ctimized category of victimiza ely to forfeit or had family members victim ized are more lik 246 their Constitutional right (69 . 6%) tha n not (30 . 4%) forfeit their Constitutional right. Respondents ' Victimization Approximately 60 percent of all Madi son and D. C. Respondents who have been victims of at least one crime would forfeit their Const itutional right for Concealed Weapons Detection Te c hnology . Under this scenario , th e null hypothesis is rejected . Victims are more likely to forfeit t heir Constitutional r i ght than non - victims . Family Members ' Victimization Thirty- one percent of al l Madison and D. C . Respondents has at least o ne family me mber who has been a victim of crime . Approximately 55 percent of the Madison and D. C . Respondents whose family member has been a victim of crime would forfeit their Constitutional right . Th e null hypothesis is rejected ; being a victim of crime and or having a fa mi l y me mber a victim of crime d oes make it more like l y that one wou ld forfeit the ir Constitutional right for Concealed Weapons Detection Techn o logy . Research Question Six : Income What will be th e extent of the relationship of an individual ' s yearly income and voluntary forfeiture of a Const ituti onal right ? 247 Results An i ndividual ' s yearly income will correlat e e qually t o t h e v a ria ble v o luntary forfeiture of on e ' s Co n s titutional right. The individual of low in c ome o r h i gh-income and voluntary forfeiture will be moderately c orrelated . The fact found i n recent studies, however, is that high fear of cr ime decreases with income 44 . The study reports that low-income Respondents would fo r fe i t t heir Constitutional rights more often than high to middle class income Respondents . The study did not predict a direction based o n previous studies 45 , however . Of the Madison and D. C . Respondents 4 6 , approximately 63 percent of the high to middl e income bracket (over $30 , 000 . 00 per year) would forfeit their Constitutional right . Sixty-seve n percent of all Madis on and D. C . low- income Respondents would forfeit their Constitutional right to promote the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . This consensus is similar t o findi n gs among recent and earl i er research studies . The fact found is that high fear of crime decreases with income , as report in other studies 47 ? The null hypothesis is rejected. Low-income Respondents are mor e like ly to forfeit their Constitutional right than are high to middle income Respondents . Both Madison Respondents and D. C . Respondents of l ow income are 2 48 more likely to forfe it their Constitutional right than Madison Respondents and D.C . Respondents of high to middle income . Research Question Seven : Locale What will be t h e extent of the relationship of an individual ' s locale (Madison versus D. C . ) and voluntary f o rfeiture of a Constitut ional right? Results An individual ' s locale will correlate equa lly to the variable voluntary forfeiture of one ' s Constitutional right . An individual living in Madison or in D. C . wil l moderately correlate to voluntary forfeiture . Th e study res ults indicate that Madison Respondents would forfeit t hei r Constitutional rights more often than would D. C . Respondents . Madis on does not have what is commonly known as the " inner-city. " Crimes are reportedly more prevalent in i nner cities . The study revea l s t hat 68 percent of Madison Respondents would forfeit their Constitutional right , and 56 percent of al l D. C . Respondents would forfei their Co nstitutional right to promote the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology48 ? The null hypot hesis is rejected . Madison and D. C . Respondents do differ . Madis on Respondents who live in the Midwest are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional 2 49 right for Concealed Weapons Detection Technology than are D. C . Re s p o ndents who live in the Southeast . Alth o ug ho.c . ha s t h e higher c rime rate , Madison demonstrates more fear t hrough forfeiture of a Constituti onal right . One e xplanation for this result , according to previous studies , is complacency , or desensitization . It is reported that many urban residents become desensitized to the existence of crime , so that crime does not result in a total withdrawal from, and rejection of urban life 49 . Summary of the Results The r e sults from previous empirical studies 50 have found that Females (68%) are more afraid of victimization and are more afraid of crime per se than Mal es (54 %) seems to correlate with the fact found in the study that Females are more willing to forfeit their Constitutional right to the Fourth Amendment protection than are Males . Females are found to be more willing to forfeit their Fourth Amendment rights as a proactive meas ure than are Males , pri. or researc h s t u d.i es 51 according to . These findings were not found to be statistically significant. The fact that previous empirical studies 5 2 have found that Caucasians are more afraid of victimization and are more afraid of crime per se than are Bl acks seems to correlate with the fact found in the study t hat Caucasian (66 %) are more willing to forfeit their Constitutional 250 right to the Fourth Amendment protection than are Blacks (51 %) . These findings were not fo und to be statistically significant . Previous contradictory empirical studies 53 have found t hat bot h younger and older individuals are more afraid of victimization and are more afraid of crime , ~ se . The study reports a finding that there is a correlation between one ' s age group and one ' s willingness to forfeit their Constitutional right to the Fourth Amendment protection . Twenty-nine percent of the younger Respondent , aged 18 to 30 would forfeit their Constitutional Fourth Amendment right , whereas the older Respondents over 30 years of age (71 %) would also forfeit their Constitutional Fourth Ame ndment right . These findings were not found to be statistically significant . 54 The fact that previous empirical studies have found that different neighborhoods are more afraid of victimization and are more afraid of crime , per se , than are other neighborhoods supports the study finding that there is a correlation found in the study between neighborhood and one ' s willingness to forfeit their Constitutional right to the Fourth Amendment protection . Sixty-five percent of the Respondents living in the inner - city/city area would forfeit their Constitutional Fourth Amendment right whereas only 35 percent of the Respondents 251 living in the suburban/rural area would forfeit their Constitutional Fourth Amendment right. These findings were not fou nd to be statistically significant . The fact that previous empirical studies 55 have found that prior victimized Respondents are more afraid of victimization and are more afraid of crime per se than non- victims seems to correlate with the fact found in the study that prior victims of self or family member are more willing to forfeit their Constitutional right to the Fourth Amendment protection (70 %) than they are not willing to forfeit their Constitutional Fourth Amendment right (30%) These findings were found to be statistically significant for the fear of crime victimization for self or family variable . The association between the dependent variable voluntary forfeiture and the independent variable fear of crime victimi za tion for self and or family me mbers was statistically significant at the a = 0 . 10 level for a (2t - test , x2 (DF=l) a = 0 . 076) value of 3 . 156 . The strength and direction of the association as determined by Pearson ' s value of . 178 (a= 0 . 077) and Spearman ' s value of . 178 (a = 0 . 077) correlations indicate a weak , positive statistically significant value at the 0 . 10 level . Based on the Chi- Square value the null hypothesis that there is no difference between voluntary forfeiture and those who fear 252 v i c t i miza t ion (62 . 9%) a nd those who d o n o t fear v i ct imi zati o n (37 . 1%) was rej e cted . The f ac t t hat previous e mpiri c al studies 56 have fo und that l o w- i n come i ndiv i d uals are more afraid of v i c timi zati o n and are mo r e a f ra i d of c rime per s e t ha n h i gh - inc ome i nd ividual s seems to corre l ate with the fa c t fo und i n the study. Th e st udy found t hat low - i n c ome Re s ponde nts (67 %) are more wil l ing to forfeit their Constitutional r i ght to th e Fourth Ame ndme n t p rotect i o n than are hi g h - income Resp ond e nts ( 63 %) . Low- i ncome Res p o nd e nts are fo und t o b e some wh at more wi lling t o fo rfe it t heir Fo urth Ame ndmen t . These f i nd ing s are not statist i ca ll y s ignificant . Pr i o r empiri ca l studi e s have f o und t ha t th e l oca l e of i ndividua l s ref l ects mo re f ea r o f v i ct imi za ti o n a nd more fear of c r ime p e r se . Th e study f o und that the i nd i v idual ' s l ocale 57 , will cor r elate equa lly with the fac ts f o und in the study . Howe v e r , th e study r eveals that 68 perc en t o f Madi son Resp o nde n ts would f o rf e i t t heir Constitu t ional righ t , a nd 56 perc e n t o f D. C. Respondents wou ld f o rfe it their Con s titu t i ona l right to promo t e the use of the n e w Co nceal e d We apons Detect ion Techn o l ogy . Th e Madison l oca le Responde nts are f o und t o b e mo r e willing t o forfe it t h e ir Fo urth Ame ndme nt t han the D. C. l oca l e 2 53 Resp o nd e nt s . These findings were not found t o b e statist i ca lly sign ificant . Discussion o f Findings Thi s s e c tion will summarize the research find i ngs , discus s t h e results , and s uggest r ecommendati ons for furt her research on t he ne w Conc e a l e d Weapons Det ection Tec hn o l o gy . Summary of Research Findi ngs Th e res ul ts of t h e st ud y of a n i ndividua l ' s willingness to vo luntar i ly forfeit a Constitu tional right in fav o r of ne w Con cealed Weapons Detection Techno l ogy out o f f e ar o f c rime and previou s victimization were simila r to ot he r studi e s of fear of crime , and v i ctimization of crime . In fa c t , r e search s t udies have fo und t h e fear o f crime in the United States to be q uite significant and wid e spre ad . Research studies o n fear of cr ime e mphas i ze that variou s proximate ca u ses of f ear a nd t he crime fear in q uestio n are relevant to o n e ' s s t ate of mind . El e me nts of i mporta nc e in de termining t h e powe r of fear to compe l a pe r son t o vol untaril y for f e i t a Con s titut i ona l righ t were fear must be of a particul ar type a nd of a certa in amo un t of t hat particu l ar t ype of fear , a nd inter alia , one ' s n e i g hbor hood , o n e ' s age , one ' s sex , one ' s race , as well a s any combi nation of socio - psychological factors , s uc h as previ o u s victimi zation 58 ? 25 4 Independent Variab l e Summary Th e c urrent events of school shootings and p ol ice shootings o f una rmed person s make it r i pe to introduce in the study the new Co ncealed Weap o n s De t ection Technology . The indepen de n t va ri a bles i n t h e s tudy were found not t o be statistic ally s igni fican t , un less indi ca t e d ot herwise . Th e presen t st udy r e v e al e d a ne ga tive Beta value f or Sex , a nd ot her i nd e p e nde nt va ri a bl es , whi c h indicate d t hat wome n (55% ) are more l ike l y t han men (45 %) are to forfeit their Co n s tit u t i onal ri ght for the new Concealed Weapons Det e ct i o n Techn o l ogy. Th e Jewi s h r e ligi o n ( 6%) are l ess l ike l y t o f o rfe it the ir Constituti onal right tha n are Protestants (58 %) , wh o are the mos t like ly , the n Ca tho li cs (1 3 %) , and " Othe r " (2 3%) r e l igio n s . Re sponden t s wh o ha d been v i c timi zed or h ad a family me mbe r vi c timi zed are more li ke ly (53 %) to f o rfe it the i r Const itutio na l r i ght t h a n are t hose wh o have not been vi c t i mi zed (47 %) . Younge r Resp o nd e nts 1 8 t o 30 ye ars o f a ge are l ess like l y (11 %) to forf e it t he i r Con s titutio na l r igh t th a n are o lde r Re spo nde nt s 3 0 ye ars o f age or o lder (89 %) . Sp ec i f i ca ll y Respo ndents in the age ran ge 18 t o 39 (45 %) were more like ly to forfe i t t heir Constitutional right tha n Res p o nd e n ts in t he age range 40 to 5 6 (2 4%) , a nd t hose Re spo ndents in the age range 56 to 8 4 , ( 31 %) . 255 Respondents who live in the i nner - city/city are more likely (65 %) to forfeit their Constitutional right than are Respondents who live in suburban areas (29 %) and those who live in rural areas (6 %) . Respondents who believe that c urfews reduce National crime (66 %) (X 2 , . 013 , 2 t , . 008 ) , reduce their City crime (68 %) and reduce their neighborhood crime (52 %) , are more likely to forfeit their Co nstitutional righ t than are those Respondents who do not believe curfews reduce National crime (34 %) , reduce City crime (32 %) or reduce t heir neighborhood crime (48 %) . The variable , c urfe ws reduce National crime is statistically significant at the 0 . 01 level . Th e Ca ucasian race (61 %) would forfeit their Constitutional right more likely than the Black (31 %) , the Latin (3 %) , the Asian (3 %) , or the "Ot her " (2 %) races . Single (4 2% ) a nd Married (40 %) Respondents are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional right than are Divorced (8 %) , or Widowed (10 %) Respondents . Respondents with dependents (62&) are more likely than not to f orfeit their Con stitutional right. However, Respondents with teenaged dependents (71 %) are even more likely than not to forfeit their Constituti onal right . Al l education l evels are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional right than they are not willing to forfeit it. However , c ollege graduates (32 %) are the most like ly 256 group . The least likely is the high school or less Respondents (18 %) , graduate or professional school (23 %) , a nd some college (27 %) . Whit e - collar workers (52 %) are more likely to forfeit their Constit utional right than are blue-collar workers (1 3%) , retirees (16 %) , students (8 %) , unemployed (8 %) , and house person (3 %). High or middle income Resp ondents (48 %) are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional right than are students or Respondents of fixed income (36 %) , or l ow income Respondents (16 %) . Respondents who believe in c urfews for all min ors are more likely (82 %) to forfeit their Constitutional right t h a n are Respondents who do not b e lieve in c urfews for all mi nors (18 %) . Respondents who believe that the City Government (31 %) s hould set curfews are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional righ t than those Respondents who believe that pare nt s should set c u rfew (29 %) , City Gover nment and pare nt s should set c urfe ws (11 %) , State Gover nment should set curfews (8 %) , and Federal Governme nt should set curfews (5 %). Sixteen percent of the Respondents do not believe in curfews for minors . These findings support results from the empiri ca l studies referenced throughout the study . Statistica l Correlations Respondents wh o believe that the new Concealed Weapon s Detection Technology should be delivered i mmediately to 257 ers to help fight crime and viole nce (9 4%) police offic 2 , 2t ,.000), are more willing to fo rfeit their (X , .000 onstitutional right than those w ho do not believe (6 %) the C mediately to ne w c oncealed weapons should be d elivered im police officers . Thes e findings are statistically s upport a hypothesis of significant at the 0.01 l evel , an d er e mpirical studies the study, as well as results fro m oth recounted in the literature revie w . w Concealed Respond e nts wh o do not believe th at the ne Detection Te c hnol ogy infringes a n individual ' s Weapons Fourth Amendment right (61 %) (X 2 , .01 3 , 2t , . 007) would more al right than those likely forfeit their Constitution espondents who believe that the n ew Concealed Weapons R Detection Technology fringes an i ndividual ' s Fourth re statistically Amendment right (39 %) . These fin dings a e 0 . 01 level , and support a hypot hesis in significant at th ies the study , as well as results fro m other empirical stud recounted in the literature revie w . Respondents who believe that the State Government cealed Weapons (89 . 9%) should control use of the new Con 2 .00 2 ) , are more likely to forfeit Detection Technology (X , their Constitutional right than t hose who believe that the y Referendum Federal Governments (66 . 7 %) , Ind ividuals Vote b 6 r Courts on a case-by- case basis (35 . 7%) should ( 0.6%) , o tion control the use of the new Conce aled Weapons Detec 258 Technology . These findings are statistically significant at the 0 . 01 level , and support my hypothesis as well as results from other empirical studies recounted in the literature review . Respondents who fear victimization for self or family members (63 %) (X 2 , .058), are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional right than are Respondents who do not fear victimization for self or fa mily members (37 %) . These results are statistically significant at the 0.05 level . Respondents who believe that curfews reduce National crime (66 %) (X2 , . 013 , 2t, . 008) , reduce their City crime (68 %) and reduce their neighborhood crime (52 %) , are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional right than are those Respondents who do not believe curfews reduce National crime (34 %) , reduce City crime (32 %) or reduce their neighborhood crime (4 8%) . Th e variable , curfews reduce National crime is statisticall y signi f i cant at the 0 . 01 level . Implications for Further Research One premise that appears to stand out in the study is that crime is a definite predictor of behavior . Decades ago , or even a decade ago , individua l s probably would not have selected , or even have considered it a serious option to place Concealed Weapons Detection Technology inside of churches . Decades ago , it was not necessary ; today , it is . 259 People have become fearful of every aspect of free living . Answers to the survey question , " Where should Concealed Weapo ns Detection Technology be located? " were across the board . Respondents want them located everywhere public. The time of day people are fearful of crime , some of the Respondents answered , " anytime ." When asked , " Where fearful of crime? " the Respondents selected every public place suggested . The results of the study suggest several impli c ati ons for furt her research r e garding the new Concealed Weap o ns De t ection Technology and an individual ' s willingness to forfeit a precious Constitutional right to effect that technology . The study found that crime is still a major oppressor in the Nati on , and that citizens are d esperate for a r eso lution . A resolution to the use of concealed weapons specifical ly guns could be the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . A study could be undertaken with an assigned community and the community's police department. The new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would be given to the police officers for daily use during their tour of police duty. This community would be made aware of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Te c hnology t heir police officers will be utilizing . An analysis of the crime statistics for that community would be performed using pre- and post-tests . 2 60 If a comparison study is of interest , then another assigned community and police department comparable to the first community would be selected and included in the study . No CWDT would actually be used by police officers , but rumors of the capabilities of the CWDT would be openly disclosed to the community . It would be intimated , h o wever , that t h e police officers of that communi ty could be armed wi th t h e new CWDT . An analysis comparing the crime statistics for the two communities would be performed using pre- and post-test for the study . The n e w Concealed Weapons Detection Technology could be us e d by the police officers of one community , only . The following scenarios would be evaluated , compared , and analyzed for t~e two communities . 1 . A study would be undertaken to analyze the impact o f the actual use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology and any decrease in crimes committed with concealed weapons . 2 . A study would be undertaken to analyze the impact of the new Co n cealed Weapons Detection Technology and the perceived sense of safety felt by school children . 3 . A study wo uld be undertaken t o analyze the impact of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology and perceived safely felt by police officers . 26 1 4 . A study to analyze the correlation betwe en the abs o lute decrease in school shootings and ot her crimes in the commun i ty commit ted with concealed weapons . 5 . A study to a nalyze the correlation between the initiation of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology and any decrease in the accusation of police profiling . 6 . A study to analyze the corre lat ion between the initiation of the ne w technology and any decrease in police shootings of unarmed individuals . Summary The above implications are but a few studies that could be condu c ted involving the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology and responsiveness from the general public . Potent ial studies are as ma ny and as varied as is the criminologists ' imagination . Presently , a solution that would effectively combat t he e pidemic of crime commi t ted with concea led weapons is not in place in the Nation . Perhaps , now the time is ripe to initiate the use of i nnovative technology such as the n ew Concealed Weapons Detection Technology discussed in the study . Wi ttingly , the intent of t h e study is to e ncourage socia l , political and scientific discussions of the feasibility of such uniqu e technology . Th e study results indicate that t he Respondents of the two Cities surveyed , 262 adison, Wisconsin and Washington, D.C., w ould welcome the M new Concealed Weapons Detection Technolog y as a solution to deter National crime . The majority of the Responde nts want police officers to have immediate use of the new Concealed ents Weapons Detect~on Technology. The majori ty of Respond h Cities in the study would vote in the a ffirmative in bot through local referendums and initiatives for this new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Even more is the fact that an equal majority of the remarkable Respondents in the study would support Fe deral Government controlli ng the use of this new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . This fa ct is revealing , taki ng into esent consideration the general public ' s and pr inistration ' s call for a smaller Governmen t . dm Desp erate A times , means Justice Marshall's desperate measures. Accordingly , if one can infer from the st udy to the opulation of the United States , then the Nati on is general p inclined to accept the utilization of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology in almost ev ery public place , n such a remarkable place as one ' s place of worship . even i Albeit , individual protections under the Constitution of tional the United States , must not be infringed . Constitu cholars will find the Constitutionality o f the Concealed s Weapons Detection Technology question cha llenging . Albeit , 263 tain to give proper weight to its justifica tion making cer during any deliberation . However , considering the new laws permittin g police departments the right to locate cameras at any corner to cealed "search" for traffic violators , surely thi s new Con tion Technology could also conduct a " searc h " Weapons Detec just as benign . Particularly after September 11 , 2001 , the Nati on is probably zealous for t h e utility of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . In trinsically , merely disseminating the knowledge Nationw ide to criminal communities , that police officers have acc ess to the technology capabilities of the new Conceal ed Weapons Detection Technology , could be a powerful deterrent strategy . ENDNOTES here was no relationship found for the inde pendent T riable , c u rfews reduce crime in the Respon dent ' s va neighborhood , or for the independent varia ble , curfews reduce crime in the Respondent ' s City . 2 th , Steven K., Steadman, Greg W., Minton , T odd D. , Smi wnsend , Meg, Criminal Victimization and Pe rceptions of To Community Safety in 12 Cities , 1998, U. S . Department of Justice , Bureau of Justice Statistics , and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services . The population statistics for Madison , Wi sconsin include Respondents 16 Years of age , or older . 3 t udy surveyed 50 Madison Respondents. The racial The s breakdown of that sample population is 6 p ercent Blacks , 92 percent Caucasian , and 2 percent "Other ." The "Other " race generally includes Latino , Asian , and Nati ve Indian . This sample is well within the true population percentage for e , Madison , as reported by the U. S . Departmen t of Justic 264 u o f Justice Statistics of 1998 . Th e Black race makes Burea s the up 3 . 5 p e rce nt of Madison's true p op ulation whe r e a Ca u casian ra c e , the largest segment of th e populat i o n i n up 91 percent . The remaining 5 . 5 pe rc ent of Madi son, ma ke s t h e true population belong to the "O ther " race . in To the contrary , of the 50 Responde nts surveyed D. c . , 68 percent is of the Black rac e , 24 percent is is Latino, 2 percent is Asian, and 2 Cauc a s ian , 4 percent P~rcent is "Other " race. This samp le population is fair ly ue population o f o. c . within the percentages fo und in the tr as r e p o rted by the U. S . Department o f Justice , Bureau of Ju s ti c e Statistics of 1998 . Fifty-t hree percent of the is of the Black race , 40 percent is true population in D.C . o f th e Caucasian race , and 7 percent is of the "Other " , and Asian. race , which includes , inter alia , L atino 1 Other race generally includes Latino , Asian , and Na t ive Indian . 5 Respondents in Madison , 62 perc ent is Of th e 50 survey Male , and 38 percent is Female. The ratio of Males to e almost two Males Females in Madison is 1.6 to 1 . The re ar to every Female in Madison. Of the 50 survey Respondents D. C., 62 percent is Females , and 38 percent is Males . in The ratio of Male to Female , of cour se , is the same . There are almost however, with contrast ing interpreta tion two Females to every Mal e in D. C. T he survey confirms a l fact t hat at least since World War II , there are histori ca twice as many Females in D.C . as Mal es . 6 inton, Todd D., Smith, Steven K., Steadman , Greg W. , M Townsend, Meg , Criminal Victimizatio n and Perceptions of fety in 12 Cities , 1998 , U.S. De partm e nt o f Community Sa Justice , Bure au of Justice Statistic s , and Office of However, t he Community Oriented Policing Services . population statistics for Madison , W isconsin include years of age , or older , whereas the instant Respondents 16 study Respondents are 18 years of ag e , or older. . 7 ondents are Forty-two percent of the Madison Res p Protestants ; 16 percent is Catholic ; 8 percent is Jewish ; nt is of the "Other " religion . Sixt y-six and 34 perce pondents are Protestants ; 12 percent ~erc ent of the D. C. Res is Catholic ; a nd 22 percent is of th e "Other " religion . 8 The mean age of the Respondents in M adison is ly 46 years of age , the median is ap proximat e ly approximate e , 43 years of age , and the mode is bim odal , 40 years of ag 2 65 and 55 years of age . The smallest value of 40 years is shown . The ages of the Respondents in D. C. have a mean of approximately 47 years of age, and a median of approximately 47 . The mode is 28 years of age. The age range is 66 for Madison Respondents, and 65 for D. C . Respondents . Both survey samples reflect a minimum age of 18 years , a nd a maximum age ~n the _ear ly 80s : a maximum age of 84 years for Respondents in Madison, and a maximum age of 83 years for D. C. Respondents. 9 The marital status of Madison Respondents is 44 percent is married. The marital status of D. C. Respondents is 42 percent is married . Forty-two percent of Madison Respondents are single . Thirty - four percent of D. C. Respondents are single . Ten percent of Madison Respondents are divorced . Ten percent of D. C. Respondents are divorced . Four percent of Madison Respondents are widowed . Fourteen percent of D. C. Respondents are widowed. 10 Madison Respondents The variable Dependents of Madis o n Respondents reflects that 24 percent of the 50 Madison Respondents have dependents . The Madison Respondents i ncluded all of their dependent c hildren , regardless of their age . Of this 24 percent , ten percent have one dependent , ten percent have two dependents , and four percent have three dependents. The range in age is 39 , the mean age is almost 10 years , the median age is eight years , and the mode is multiple: 6 , 7 and 10 . The statistics , however , reflect the s mallest value of 6 . The surveyor did not ask but only assumed that the dependents well over the majority age could possibly be either physically or mentally disabled . Of the 24 percent of Madison Respondents who have dependents , approx imat e ly 67 percent believe concealed weapons detectors technology should be delivered immediately into the hands of our police officers ; 33 percent believe it should not . Of all Madison Respondents with dependents, 75 percent would forfe i t their Constitutional right in favor of the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology. Approximately 42 percent of the Madison Respondents with dependents feel that the us e of concealed weapons detectors would infringe on their Constitutional right , whereas 58 percent believe it would not . However , of those 266 Madison Respondents with dependents who believe that Concealed Weapons Detection Technology use would infringe on their Fourth Amendment right , 60 percent would forfeit that Constitutional right . One hundred percent of the Madison Respondents with teenage dependents believe that Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would infringe on their Constitutional right. However, 100 percent would forfeit their Constitutional right for the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Seventy- six percent of Madison Respondents are without dependents . Approximately 66 percent of all Madison Respondents without dependents would forfeit their Constitutional right for Concealed Weapons Detection Technology use . Forty-seven percent of the Madison Respondents without dependents believe that Concealed Weapons Detection Techn ology us e would i n fri nge on their Constitutiona l right . However , 50 percent of the Madison Respondents who believe that Concealed Weapons Detection Technology use would infringe on their Constitutional right , would forfeit t hat right . D.C . Respondents Twenty-eight percent of a ll D. C. Respondents have dependents . The D. C. Respondents ' dependents included children only 2 0 years of age or younger . Of this 28 percent , 18 percent have one dependent , 8 percent have two dependents , and 2 percent have five dependents . The range in age is 19 , the mean age is 9 years , t h e median age is approximately 8 years , and the mode is multiple : 2 , 5 and 15 . The statistics , however , reflect the smallest value , 2 . Fifty percent of the D. C. Respondents with dependents would forfeit their Constitutional righ t for the us e of concealed weapons detectors . Of all D. C. Respondents with dependents , approximately 57 percent believe the us e of the new Concea led Weapons Detection Technology would infringe on their Constitutional right , and , approximately 43 percent b e lieve it would not . Of those D. C. Respondents with dependents who b elieve t hat Concealed Weapons Detection Technol ogy would infringe o n their Constitutional right , approximately 38 percent wo u ld forfeit that Co nstit uti ona l right in favor of the use of the new Co ncealed Weapons Detect i o n Technology . Approximately 62 percent would not . Moreover , approximately 93 perc ent of 267 the D. C . Respondents with dependents believe that Concealed Weapons Detection Technology should be delivered i mmediately into the hands of police officers , whereas 7 percent do not. Fi fty percent of all D. C. Respondents with teenage dependents would forfeit their Constitutional right for t he use o f he new Co ncealed Weapons Detection Technology . Seven ty-five percent of the D. C. Respondents with teenage dependents believe the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would infringe on their Constitutional right . Of that 75 percent , approximately 33 percent would forfeit that Constitutional right . Seventy-two percent of all D. C. Respondents are without dependents . Approximately 58 perce nt of the D. C. Respondents without dependents would forfeit their Constituti onal right for the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology use . Approximately 51 percent of all D. C . Respondents without dependents believe that Concealed Weapons Detection Technology use would infringe on their Const ituti o nal right . However , 10 0 percent of the D. C. Respondents without dependents who believe that Concealed Weapons Detection Technology use would infringe o n their Constitutional right , would forfeit that right . 11 The sampl es of both Madison and D. C. repres e nt well - educated populations . Eight y-four percent of the Respondents surveyed in Madison have at least some college e ducation . Sixteen percent of the Madison Respondents have an ed ucation of high school or less. Seventy-six percent of the Respondents surveyed in D. C. have at least some college education . Twenty-four p e rcent of D. C. Respondents have an education of high school or l ess . 12 Forty-two percent of Madis on Respondents are white- collar workers . Twenty-six percent is blue-collar workers . Thirty- two percent is students , unemployed , retired , or housewives . Fifty-four percent of D. C . Respondents are white-collar workers . Six percent is blue-collar workers . Forty percent is students , unempl oyed , retired , or ho use wives . 13 Th e year ly income for Madi son Respondents represents an " N" of 33 Respondents for 66 percent . The mean yearly income of those Madison Respondents is approximately $53 , 000 . 00 ; the median is $40 , 000 . 00 . The yearly income mode for Madison is $20 , 000 . 00 , although in actuality a bimodal , whi c h includes $50 , 000 . 00 . The range is 268 approximately $190 , 000.00 , with the minimum of $60,000.00, and the maximum of $250 , 000 . 00 . The remaining 17 for 34 percent of the Madison Respondents are either students, retirees, unemployed , or housewives. This category is excluded from the analysis in the study inasmuch as 0, no i n come , is used to represent yearly income earned. The yearly income " N" for D. C. Respondents is 30 for 60 percent. The mean yearly income of D. C. Respondents is approximately $42 , 000 . 00 ; the median and mode are $50 , 000 .00. The range is $86 , 000.00 , with the minimum of $9 , 000 . 00, and the maximum of $95 , 000 . 00. The remaining 20 for 40 percent of the D. C. Respondents are either students, retired , unemployed , or housewives . Again, this category is excluded from the analysis in the study inasmuch as 0 , no income , represent yearly income earned . To include the large number of Respondents in both Madison and D. C., who are in the student , retired , unemployed , and housewife category would , of course , grossly askew t he results . 14 Victimization included either personal , property , or personal and property crimes . These terms were analyzed and used interchangeably in the study with the terms misdemeanor crime and felony crime. 15 MADISON Forty-four percent of all Madison Respondents self- report at least one crime committed against them . Of that 36 percent , 73 percent self-report at least one misdemeanor crime 18 percent self-report at least one felony crime , and 9 percent self - report at least one misdemeanor and felony cr ime committed against t hem . Of the 73 percent of Madison Respondents who self- report victimization of at least o ne mi sdemeanor crime , the most frequent time reported by 22 percent of the variable " last time victimized ," is eight years ago . The next most frequent time l as t victimized by approximately 17 percent of the Madison Respondents is t wo years ago . The percent of misdemeanor crimes self-reported were burglary , reported by 50 percent , car v a nda li s m reported by approximately 33 percent , property vandalism reported by 11 percent , and petty theft reported by approximately 6 percent of the Madison Respon de nts . Sixty-fou r percen t of all Madison Respondents were not victims of misdemeanor crimes . The stat i stics are somewhat different for Madison self-reported fe l ony victimization . Forty-four percent of all Madison Responden ts self-report victimization . Twelve 269 p e r c ent of Madison Respondents self - report at least one f e l o ny vi c timization . Of this 12 percent , the variabl e " t h e time period last victimized " the most frequent time s rep ort e d was equally reported by a pproximately 1 7 perc ent of t h e Madison Respondents : four years , five years , nin e years , en years , 13 years , and 17 years ago . The felony crime s reported were assault and battery, fraud , grand theft , and robbery . Thirty-three percent of the Madison Respondents report being victims of robbery , 33 percent reported grand t heft , approximately 17 percent reported assault and battery , and approximately 17 percent reported fraud . Approximately nin e percent of all Madi son Respondents were victims of both misde meanor and felony c rimes . Eighty-eight percent of al l Madi son Respondents self - report no felony crime victimization . D. C. Thirty percent of D. C. Respondents self - report victimization of at l east o ne mi sdemeanor crime . Of those Resp ondents who reported misdemeanor crime victimi zation , as " the last time victimized " the most freque n t times reported by 2 0 p ercent of the Respondents were l ess than a year ago , and 20 years ag o . The misdemeanor crimes rep orted were simple assault , by 2 0 p ercent of the Respon d e n ts , battery , reported by almost 7 percent , t heft reported by 60 percent , and vandalism reported by 1 3 percent of the Respondents . Seventy percent of D. C. Respondents self-report no misdemeanor victimization . The freque ncies are somewhat comparabl e for Madi son and D. C . self - report e d felony victimization . Twenty-six percent of D. C . Respondents se l f - report at least o ne felony victimi zation . Of that 26 percent , " the l ast time victimized " most frequently reported by 23 percent was less t ha n o ne year ago . The felony crimes reported by the D. C. Responden ts we r e armed robbery by approximate ly 8 percent , assault and battery by approximately 8 percent , rape reported by 8 percen t , attempted rape by approximately 8 percent , burglary reported by approximately 3 1 percent , fo rgery by approximat e ly 8 percent , armed car jac king by approximately; p e rcent , aggravated assault and armed robbery , each reported by approximately 15 percent , and grand theft reported by approximately 7 percent . Forty- two percent of all D. C. Res pondents self - report victimization of both mi sdemea nor and felony crime . Seventy-four percent of D. C. Respondents self- report no fe lony victimization. 270 1 6 MADISON Twelve percent of the Madison Respo ndents report percent family member misdemeanor victimiza tion . Of the 12 e p o rting family member misdemeanor victimization, 83 r p e r c ent o f Madison Respondents repo rt one family member roximately 17 percent misdemeanor victimization, and app nt last time a rep o rt 3 f amily members. The most freque family member was the victim of a m isdemeanor crime was ten s reported by 33 percent of the Ma dison y e ars ago a Re spondents. The misdemeanor crime s the Madison y me mbers were Re spo ndents reported committed aga inst famil petty t h e f t by approximately 83 per cent , and burglary/theft by 1 7 percent o f the Respondents . s report Twenty-two percent of Madison Respo ndent family member felony crime victimiz ation . Of the 2 2 mily member felony victimization , 5 5 percent reporting fa percent of the Respondents report t hat at least once a member. felony crime was committed against a family Eighteen percent report at least tw ice a family member had committed against t h em. Eighteen percent a felony crime report at least three times a felon y crime had been ine percent reports c ommitted against a family members. N been a victim that at least ten times a family me mber had of a felony crime . The most frequent last time a famil y member was a y victim was two years ago , as repo rted by f e lon a pproximat e ly 18 percent of the Ma dison Responde nts. Th e against family 18 percent report the crimes commi tted members was robbery , assault , rape , and assault and battery . Nine percent of the Madi s on Respondents report es committed against family me mber : each of t h e felony cr im robbery/fraud , drive-by shooting , a nd grand theft . D. C . report at least Eighteen percent of D. C . Respondent s one family member misdemeanor crime victimization . The most frequent periods each reported by approximately 22 mily member was last percent of the Respondents when a f a ago. The misdemeanor victimized are one year and two yea rs c rimes committed against family mem bers as reported by D. C . Respondents are petty theft by appr oximately 56 percent , sm by approximately 22 perce nt , and simpl e assault vandali by approximately 22 percent . Twenty-two percent of D. C. Responde nts report at least ly member felony victimization . Th e most frequent one fami responses by approximately 27 perce nt of the D. C . 271 Respondents for each last time family member victimized are less t han o n e year , and two years ago. Of the 22 percent of the D. C. Respondents who report family member felony crime victimization, approximately 18. 2 percent report murder, approximately 18.2 percent report grand theft , and approximately 18.1 percent report breaking and entering. Approximately 9.1 percent of the D. C . Respondents report family member felony crimes as aggravated assault , armed robbery/murder, grand theft/aggravated assault, armed carjacking , and kidnapping . 17 A misdemeanor crime w ta hs ed e sf ui rn ve ed y i an s : A misdemeanor is a bym i an o fr i nc eri ,m pe ep nu an lti ysh , able or imprisonme a nt c if to yr jl ae is ls . th Fa on r a year in the purpose of this wsu ilr lv e ny o, t m inis cd le um deea nor traffic violations . 1.8 A felony cr ime was defined in the survey as: A felony is a serious crime punishable by death or imprisonment in a state or federal prison for more than a year . 19 When questioned as to whether in their opinion using ~he new Concealed weapons Detection Technology would be an infringement on their Constitutional rights , specifically , their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures , 46 percent of Madi son Respondents responded , " Yes , " and 54 percent responded "No. " When asked this same question , the D.C. Respondents answered " Yes ," 52 percent of the time , and 48 percent answered , " No ." When questioned hypotheti ca l ly , " If use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology is an infringement upon their Constitutional right, and , in fact , found legally to be an unreasonable search and seizure , would they be willing to forfeit that right only for the purpose of police officers ' us e ," 68 percent of Madison Respondents answered , " Yes ," and 32 percent responded , " No ." When asked the same question , the D. C . Respondents answered " Yes ," 56 percent of the time , and 44 percent responded " No ." 20 When questioned as to whether delivering the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology immediately into the hands of law enforcement officers would help fight crime and violence , 80 percent of the Madison Respondents 272 r e p o rted in the affirmative and 20 percent answered in the n e gative . In response to this same question , the D. C . Re spondents answered in the affirmative 84 percent of the time , and 16 percent responded in the negative . 2 1 The t e rm "located" wa s explained to the Respondents to me an either stdtionary placement of a concealed weapons det e ctor , o r wherever a police officer c ould be located, ca rrying a concealed weapons detector. 22 Ninety percent of Madison Respondents want detectors located in airports . The lo c ation Courthouse was selected by 8 4 percent o f the Madis e?. Respondents . Subways and subway stations were locatio ns wanted by 82 percent. Eighty percent of Madison Respondents want concealed weapons detectors located on trains , and in train stations . Se venty - eight percent of the Respondents in Madison want detectors located in banks , in high schools , in bus depots , and on travel b us es . Seventy pe rcent of the Madi son Re spondents would like to have concealed weapon s detectors located in youth-oriented places . Madison Respondents 62 percent of the time want detecto~s located i n elementary schools . Sixty percent of the Madison Respondents selected putting detectors on college campus es . Fifty-eight percent of the Respondents want concealed weapons detectors located in bars and nightclubs . Madison Respondents 52 percent of the time want all stores anrl shopping mall s to have detectors. The movie theatre was a location selected to place concealed weapons detectors by 48 percent of the Respondents in Madison . Public libraries were selected for placeme nt of detectors by 44 percent of Madison Respondents . Forty percent of the Madison Respondents believe that concealed weapons detectors should be located i n health spas and in restaurants . Thirty-four percent of Madison Respondents want concealed weapons detectors located in churches and other religious institutions . Two percent of Madison Respondents want concealed weapons detectors located in high crime areas only. The D. C . Respondents want the new concealed weapons de tectors , 84 p ercent of the time , located in high schools . Eighty percent of D. C. Respondents want the detectors located in airports . Seventy-eight percent of D. C. Respondents believe concea : ? j weap ons detectors s hould be located in Courthouses , on trains , and in train stations. Seventy-four percent of the D. C. Respondents wan t concealed weapons detec tors located in banks , on travel buses , and in 273 bus depots. Seventy percent believe the detectors should be located on subways , and in subway stations . Sixty-six percent of the D. C. Respondents believe the new concealed weapons detectors should be located on college campuses, o n subways, in subway stations, and in bars and nightclubs . Sixty-four percent of the D.C . Respondents believe detectors should be located in youth-oriented places . Sixty-two percent of the D.C . Respondents believe detectors should be located in elementary schools . Fifty- eight percent of the D.C . Respondents believe detectors should be located in movie theatres . Th e category Public libraries was selected by 5 4 percent of D. C . Respondents to locate concea led weapons detectors . Fifty-two percent of the D. C. Respondents believe the detectors should be located in all stores and shopping malls . Forty - six percent of D. C . Respondents believe detectors should be located in churches and other religious institutions . Forty-two percent of the D. C . Respondents believe that concealed weapons detectors should be located in restaurants . Thirty-six percent of D.C . Respondents want concealed weapons detectors located in health spas. Six percent of the D. C . Respondents believe concealed weapons detectors should be located in high crime areas only . Madison and D. C . Respondents do not believe crime occurs in high crime areas , only . The choice " high c rime areas only " is the only category to receive a single digit response . Only two percent of Madison Respondents selected this category as a reason to forfeit their Constitutional right . Six percent of the D. C . Respondents selected this category . 23 The study was taken pre - September 11 , 2001 . Nevertheless , an overwhelming 85% of the study Respondents wo uld want CWDT located in airports . 2 4 Youth-oriented places were described to the Madison and D. C . Respondents as any place where teenager i ndividuals have a tendency to frequent . 25 The results of this particular question surprised the surveyor . The surveyor asked several of the Madison Respondents w~y such a high response for churches . The surveyor was informed that of late there had been a rash of church crimes. ' 274 26 ison Respondents opined 30 percent o f the time that Mad State, should individual votes initiated by refere ndum, per he have control . Twenty-eight percent believed that t Federal Government should have cont rol. Twenty-si x percent ate Government should have control . stated that the St dicated that the Courts should have Sixteen percent in c ontrol , on a case-by- case basis. Respondents opined 36 percent of the time The D.C . that individual votes initiated by referendum, per State, tated that the should have control . Thirty- two pe rcent s Federal Government should have cont rol . Twelve percent State Government should have contro l . indicated that the Twelve percent believed that the Co urts should have of the control , on a case -by-case basis. E ight percent D. c . Respondents stated they had no preference of who should have control . 27 MADISON nts report Thirty- two percent of all Madison R esponde fear of some type of victimization , either personal , ersonal and property crimes . Of tha t 32 property , or p ly 6 percent fear personal crime , 6 percent , approximate percent fear property crime , and 20 percent fear both all property and personal crime . Howeve r , 24 percent of Madison Respondents fear personal cr ime , 26 percent fear ty crime , and 18 percent fear both p ersonal and proper property crime victimization . Of the 32 percent of Madison Respon dents wh o fear some approximately 71 percent believe con cealed type of crime, weapons should be immediately delive red to , and used by law lieve concealed weapons enforcement officers , 47 percent be tution right , and detectors do not infringe on their c onsti approximately 71 percent would forf eit their Constitutional right to permit the use of the new C oncealed Weapons Detection Technology . Forty-two percent of the Madison Re spondents who fear Concealed Weapons Detection Technolo gy should crime believe iately to police officers even though be delivered immed they believe it would infringe on th eir Constitutional have right. Of the 42 percent of Madison Respondents who been victimized and believe Conceale d Weapons Detection should be delivered immediately to p olice Technology officers even if it infringes on th eir Constitutional forfeit that right , 60 percent would be willing t o Constit utional right. 275 Sixty-eight percent of Madison Respondents do not fear crime. Of the 68 percent of Madison Respondents who do not fear crime , approximat ely 85 percent believe Concealed Weapons Detection Technology should be delivered immediately for police officers' use . Approximately 42 percent of t he 68 percent of Madison Respondents do not fear crime and believe Co ncealed We apons Detection Technology infringes on their Constitutional rights. However , of those Madison Respondents who do not fear crime , approximately 64 pe rce nt would be willing to forfeit that Constitutional right in favor of police officer use of t h e new Concealed Weapons Detection Tech no l ogy . Of the Madison Respondents reporting misdemeanor victimization , approximately 53 percent would forfeit their Constitutional righ t to permit police officers to use the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology. Approximately 46 percent of the felony victims of the Madison Respondents would forfeit their Constitutional righ t to permit police officers to use the n ew Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Of the Madison Respondents who had been victimized by both misdemeanor and felony cr imes , approximately 43 percent of them would forfeit their Constitutional right to permit police officers t o us e the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology. These results support the earlier studies that found that p eople who were victimized were more willing to accept c utting-edge solutions to eliminate crime in their neighborhood , city , and the nation . The st udy found that this theory applied on ly to Madison victims of mi sdemeanor crimes . One solution acceptabl e in the study is the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . The frequencies from the study , however , do not support the theory that fear of crime increases with victimization. Alternatively , the study does support the t hesis that the ques tion of whether fear of crime does or does not increase with prior victimization is still an illusory one . As stated previously , 44 percent of all Madison Respondents have been victims of crime . Approximately 18 percent of those Madison Respondents fear crime . Of the 56 perce nt of Madison Respondents who have not been victimized , approximately 43 percent fear crime . Obviously , these percents d o not support the consensus of previous research studies that high fear of crime increases with prior victimization . Perhaps an explanation for this lack of support is the fact that Madison residents generally do not experience high incidents of violent crimes . 276 D.C. Fifty-two percent of D. C. Respondents report fear of some type of victimization , either personal , property, or personal and property . Forty-eight percent report no fear of crime . Of the 52 percent who report fear , approximately 2 3 percent fear personal crime , approximately 12 percent f ear property crime , and approximately 65 percent fear both property and personal crime . Fifty-two percent of D. C. Respondents fear some type o f victimization , either personal, property , or personal and property crimes . Of that 52 percent , approximately 27 percent fear personal crime , 12 percent fear property crime , and 61 percent fear both property and personal crime . Of the 52 percent of the D. C. Respondents who fear crime , approximately 92 percent believe concealed weapons should be immediately delivered to and used by law enforcement officials . Approximately 8 percent do not . Approximately 58 percent of the D. C. Respondents who fear crime are of the opinion that using the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would infringe on their Constit uti onal right . Approximately 42 percent of the D.C . Respondents who fear crime do not believe Concealed Weapons Detection Technology infringes on their constitution right . Of all D. C. Respondents who fear crime of some type , personal , or property , or personal and property crimes , approximat e ly 69 percent would forfeit their Constitutional right to permit police officer to use the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . D. C. Respondents who fear crime and believe Concealed Weapons Detection Technology do infringe on their Constitutional right , approximately 35 percent would be willing to forfeit that Constitutional right. Of the D. C. Respondents who do not fear crime and believe Concealed Weapons Detection Technology would infringe o n their Constitutional right , approximately 23 percent would be willing to forfeit t hat Constitutional right . Of all D. C . Respondents who have been previously victimized , approximately 30 percent have been a victim at least once of a misdemeanor crime , approximately 26 percent of the Respondents had been a victim at least once of a felony crime , a nd approximately 42 percent have been victims of at least one misdemeanor and felony crime . Of all misdemeanor victims , approximately 53 percent of the D. C. Respondents would forfeit their Constitutional right to permit police officers to use the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Approximately 46 percent of the 277 felony victims of the D. C. Respondents would forfeit their Co nstitutional r ight to permit police officers to use the new Co ncea led Weapons Detection Technology. D. C. Respondents who had been victimized by both misdemeanor and felony crime, approximately 43 percent of them would forfeit their Constitutional right to permit police officers to use the new Concealed Weapons Detecti o n Technology. Of the 42 percent of D. C. Respondents who have been a victim of crime , approximately 61 percent fear crime. Of the 58 percent of D.C . Respondents who have not been previously victimized , approximately 40 percent fear crime . The stat istics for the D. C. Respondents support the consen sus of previous research studies that high fear of crime increases with prior victimization. This portion of the study also supports conclusions found in prior studies that people fear specific crimes , as opposed to fearing crime , generally . The D. C. Respondents who report victimization were more likely to forfeit their Constitutional right than those who were never victimized . Specifically , when asked whether they would forfeit their Constitutional right to prevent property crime and violence , 89 percent of D. C . Respondents said they would forfeit their right . This is contradictory to the 52 percent of D. C. Respondents who fear some type of crime and only 69 percent would forfeit their Constitutional right . 2 8 Of all Madison Respondents , 36 percent report fear of crime for a family member . Those Respondents who fear fami ly member victimization , approximately 61 percent of . 2 9 For a discussion on these fears , see , Chiri cos , Ted , Michael Hogan , and March Gertz , 19 87 . Racial Composition of Neighborhood and Fear of Crime . Criminology 35 : 107-31 . 30 FACTORS OF FEAR Age The Respondents for both Madis on and D. C. identified the age range they most fear . The age range categories presented in years in the study are 4 to 14 , 15 to 2 5, 26 to 36 , 37 to 47 , and 48 and over . Of the 32 percent of the Madison Respondents who fear some type of victimization , 61 percent who fear personal victimization fear the age range of 15 to 25 years , and approximately 31 percent of the Respondents fear the age 278 range of 26 to 36 years . The age range least feared by approximately 8 percent is the age range 48 years and older. Only one Respondents reported this last age range . As this researcher noted, at the time of the survey , the Respondents had within just days experienced personal crime vi c timization by someone close to the family. The age range most feared by 54 percent of the Madison Respondents who fear property victimization is the age range of 15 to 25 years . The only other age range feared by 46 percent of the Madi son Respondents is the age range of 26 to 36 years . The age range most feared by approximately 65 percent of the D. C. Respondents who fear personal victimization is the age range of 15 to 25 years . Twenty-nine percent the Respondents most fear the age range of 26 to 36 years . Approximately 6 percent of the D. C. Respondents fear the age range of 37 to 47 years. The age range most feared by 60 percent of the D. C. Respondents who fear property victimization is the age range of 15 to 25 years . The only othe r age range feared by 40 percent of the Respondents is t he age range of 26 to 36 years . Time of Day The Madison and D. C. Respondents who fear victimization were asked to identify the time of day they most fear victimization for themselves . The times of day from which to select was morning, afternoon, evening , past midnight, and any time of t h e day or n ight . The more frequent time of day se l ected by approximately 62 percent of the Madison Respondents is past midnight . Twenty-three percent reported they are most fearful in the evening, and 15 percent reported they are most fearful in t h e morning . The mor e frequent time of day selected by approximately 65 percent of the D.C . Respondents is evening . Approximately 19 percent of the D. C . Respondents are most fearful past midnight, approximately 8 percent most fear morning , and almost 4 percent most fear both afternoon , and anytime of the day or night . Crime Most Feared The Respondents of Madis on and D. C. were asked to rank the crime they fear most for themselves from 1 to 13 with 1 279 representing the crime they fear the most and 13 the crime they fear the least . The crime categories t h e study provided are murder , robbery , burglary , rape, assault, c arjacking , and drive - by shooting . These main categories had subcategories of the crime being committed with or without a con cealed weapon . An example would be a category of murder, and the subcategories would be with a concealed weapon , or without a concealed weapon . Both Madison and D. C. Respondent s selected the subcategory, crime committed with a concealed weapon . The crime most feared by 32 percent of Madis on Respondents was murder with a concea l ed weapon . The crime most feared by 29 percent of D. C. Respondents was robbery with a concealed weapon. Where Fearful Of Victimization Madison and D. C . Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were fearful of victimization in various locat i ons . These locations i nclude : high crime areas only , their home , their neighborhood , airports , bus depots , on travel buses , as opposed to c it y buses , in train stations , o n trains , in subway s t ation s , on subways , in youth- or i ent ed places , in court houses , in movie t hea t res , in restaurants , in bar s and night clubs , in al l stores , in banks , in health spas , in elementary schools , in high schoo l s , on col l ege campus es , in churches and other religious instit u t i ons , in public libraries , on their job , and in parking lots . Less than 30 percent of all Madis on Respondents report fear in any one particular location . In sharpcontrast , 80 percent of the D. C. Respondents reported fear in o n e particular location . The most feared location for Madison Respo nde nts (28 percent) was in their neig hborhood . Th e most feared location for D. C . Respondents (80 percent) is in high schools . 31 Smit h , Steven K., Steadman , Greg W. , Minton , Todd D. , Townsend , Meg , Criminal Victimization a nd Perceptions of Community Safe t y in 12 Cities , 1998 , U.S. Departme nt of Justice , Burea u of Justi ce Statistics , and Office of Commun ity Oriented Policing Services . Th e population statistics for Madison , Wi sconsin include Respondents 16 years of age , or o lder . 32 Sch o l ars generalize that fear is a multidimensional concept ; t hat there are various dimensions of the concept of fear and compone nts of fear that need to be theoretically and empirically distinguished . Specifically , two components of fear being a cognitive or risk perception 280 compo n e nt , and an e motion or "being afraid " c omp o nent . Peopl e being people , respond in different ways t o crime and fe ar o f c rime . Some r epo rts find that some individual s may avoi d par t icular places at particu lar times ; some may purchase protective equipment such as burglar alarm systems , and d e adb o lt locks ; some may form neighborhood crime watch gro ups or coalitions against crime ; some may modify their daily routines a n d lifestyles ; and some may change their living arrangeme nts , and mode or method of transportation (DuBo w, Mc Cabe , and Kaplan 1979). For other persons , crime and fear of crime may have no discernible impact on their " a ff ecti ve states ," or " behavior " (DuBow , McCabe, and Kaplan 1979) . (Benson , P . R . (1981) , Biderman , A . D. , John son , L . A., McI ntyre , J ., & We ir , A . (1967) , Bordua, D. J . & Tifft , L. L . (1971) , Dean , D. (1980) , Frank, J ., Br and l , S . G . , Cu 11 en , F . T . , & St i c hma n , A . ( 19 9 6 ) , Greene , J . R . , & Decker , S . H. (1989)) . 33 (Ro untree (1998) ; Braungart , Braungart , and Hayer (19 8 0) ; Mi e the (1995) , Clarke & Lewis (198 2 ) , Staffo rd & Galle (1984) , Co h e n , L . & Felson , M. (1979) , Garofalo , J . (1981) , Gre ene , J . R. & Decker , S . H. (1979) , Lewis , D. A., & Sa l e m, G. (1 986 ) , Lofti n , C., & McDowall , D. (198 1)) . 3 4 The st udy s howe d people respond in different ways to crime a nd fear of cr ime . One article " When Rights Are Wr o ng " espoused a premise which may be applicable to the appropriateness of citizens voting into law by referendum official police us e of Concealed Weapons Detection Technol ogy . This article stated that p erhaps citizens ' democratic participation was a h ea lthy thing . (Meares , Tracey L . & Dan M. Kahan (1999) , Agnew , R. S . (1 985) , Balkan , S . (1979) , Coh en , L . & Felson , M. (197 9 ) , DuBow , F ., McCabe , E ., & Kaplan , G. (1 979 )) . 3 \ So c iologists , psychologists , and criminologists have r e ported fear of crime as an empirical predi c tor o f human behavior . Socia l research scholars believe once a person exper i e nces being a violent crime victim , that p e rson b egins to fear ma ny types of criminal victimization . (Rountree , 1998 ; Garofalo , 1 979) . Studi es have surmi sed that greater trauma may create a greater spil l over effect , that vio l e nt victimization is often mor e traumatic than less confrontat ional property victimization , that violent victimization may be more likely to lead to heightened perceptions of neighborh ood disorder , which in turn increases fear of any crime , including crimes oth er than 281 t crime one has a lready experienced . (LaGrange & the violen field, (1980), Fer~aro, (1989) , Lebowitz (1975) , Lewis & Max Lewis & Salem, (1986) , Warr, M. (1 984) , Sales , E . , Baum, M. , & Shore , B . (1983)). 3 6 r (1980) Rountree (1998) , Braungart, Braung art, & Haye Miethe (1995), Clarke & Lewis (198 2), Stafford & Galle ' B . , Covington , J. (1993), Smith , L. (1984) , Taylor , R . & H., & Hill, G. D. (1991), Lavrakas , P. J. (198 2 )). n Technology law However , if the Concealed Weapons Detectio is to depend upon precedent citizen ry initiated law , such icago curfew ordinance o f 1992, it may never as the Ch become law . The Chicago curfew law was designed to regating on street r es trict known gang members from c ong t corners and other public ways . Al though it appears tha lly cons idered guidelines accompan ied the ordinance, carefu or the ordinance was struck down for arbitrary and, dis c riminatory enforcement . This law was struck down, despite the fact that the in decreasing crime . ordinance was reportedly successfu l ealed Weapons Perhaps that would be the fate of the new Conc Detection Technology. 3 7 of the E . A . Stanko , Women, Crime and Fear , Annals American Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol. 539 , ieth e , Fear and Withdrawal From Orb an May 1995. T.D . M Life , Annals of the American Academ y of Political and . Florida Department of Social Science , Vol . 539 , May 19 95 Juvenile Justice , Bureau of Data a nd Research , Fear of Crime & Related Perceptions in Flo rida - 1997, Research igest , Issue 23 , July 1998. E . Mad riz , Nothing Bad Happens D Crime in Women 's Lives, Universit y to Good Girls : Fear of of Ca lifornia Press, Berkeley, Cal ifornia , 1997. 38 f all Madison The results of the study indicate that o ho would forfeit their Constitution al right , Respondents w t is Male, and 48 percent is Female . approximat e ly 52 percen It appears that the Madison Male R espondents are more ht than Female likely to forfeit their Constitutio nal rig Respondents until one looks at the oth er side of the picture . ng within the genders , all Madison Female Observi Respondents , 84 percent would forf eit their Constitutional the Male Madison right , and 16 percent would not . Of Respondents , 55 percent would forf eit their right, and 45 uld not. In this instance, Females in Madi son percent wo than are more likely to forfeit their C onstitutional right 282 are Madis o n Males. In either instance, the n ull hypothesis i s r e j e cted . orfeit their Of all D. C . Respondents who would f is Male, and Constitutional right , approximate ly 36 percent 64 percent is Female. The null h ypothesis is rejected. emales are more likely to forfeit their Constitutional F n within the genders, of all D.C. right than Males . Eve Female Respondents , 58 percent wo uld forfeit their uld not. Of all Constitutional right , and 42 perc ent wo D. C . Male Respondents , 53 percent would forfeit their 47 percent would not . The null hy pot hesis right , and remains rejected . The D. C. Femal es are more likely to t than are t h e Males . forfeit their Constitutional righ 39 of Justice The U. S . Department of Justice , B ureau Statistics in 1995 reported that statistics indicate that American households were much mor e likely than African - Anglo-American households were to indicate crime was a times as man y African- neighborhood problem . In 1995 , 2 .5 l em, however , the American households found crime w as a prob difference was not nearly as larg e for actual victimization . dicated that 2 7% of African-Americ an The report in households experienced one or mor e crimes , compared to 23 % also , Chiri cos , Ted , of Anglo - American households . Se e l Composition of Michael Hogan , and March Gertz, 1 987. Racia Neighborhood and Fear of Crime . Criminology 35 :10 7-31 . 40 In contradiction to the study , the Florida study eported that a high fear of crime was more common among r . 4%) , and less common younger Respondents aged 18 to 24 (20 o lder (12 . 9%) . for older Respondents 65 years of age and However , other research studies h ave reported as the study reports , the elderly self-report being more fearful than ls (Rountree 1998 ; Braungart , Brau ngart , younger individua and Hayer 1980 ; Miethe 1995 ; Clar ke and Lewis 1982 ; Stafford and Galle 1984) . 41 Some empirical models of fear of crime included as a he neighborhood . predictor , perceived level of crim e in t act on fear of Th e studies report that locale ha d an imp crime . Grabosky 1995 ; Rountree 1 998) . The more crime neighborhood , the more fear . Ch iricos , perceived in the Ted , Mi chae l Hogan , and March Ger tz , 1987 . Racial ear of Crime . Criminology Composition of Neighborhood and F 35 : 107-31 . 283 42 Ro untree , 1998 ; Garofalo, 1979. 43 Rountree 1998 ; Braungart, Braungart, an d Hayer 1980; Mie the 1995; Clarke and Lewis 198 2 ; St afford and Galle 1 98 4. 44 Id. 45 One consensus among recent and earlier research st udi e s is the fact that high fear of crime decreases with i ncome (Rountree 1998 ; Braungart , Brau ngart, and Hayer 0; Miethe 1995 ; Clarke and Lewis 1982; Stafford and 1 98 Galle 1984) . 46 In the study , almost 42 percent of Mad ison Respondents of high to middle income of $30 , 000 or more would forfeit their Constitutional right . Fifty-eigh t percent of Madison spondents of low income of less than $3 0 , 000 would Re f o rfeit their Constitutional right . Forty-seven percent of D. C. Respondents of high t o middle income o f $30 , 000 or more would forfeit the ir Constitutional right . Approximately 53 percent of D. C. Re spondents of low income of less than $30 , 000 would f o rfeit their Constitutional right . me The null hypothesis is not rejected . L ow-in c o Respondents would forfeit their Consti tutional right more likely than high to middle income Resp ondents . Individually , both Madison Respondents and D. C. Respondents of low income would forfeit their Cons titutional right more often than Madison Respondents and D. C . Respondents of high to middle income . 47 Rountree 1998 ; Braungart , Braungart , an d Hayer 1980 ; Miethe 1995 ; Clarke and Lewis 1982 ; St afford and Galle 1984 . 48 Of all Madison Respondents , 80 percent believe Concealed Weapons Detection Technology should be delivere d immediately into the hands of our p o lic e o fficers , wh e r e as 2 0 percent believe it should not . Six ty-e ight percent of all Madison Respondents wo uld forfeit t heir Constitutional for the use of Concealed Weapons Detec tion right nology . Forty- six percent of all Madiso n Respondents Tech f Concealed Weapons Detection Technolog y believe the use o eir Constitutional right . However , of that infringes on th 46 percent who believe the new Conceale d Weapons Detection 284 Technology infringes on their Constitutional right, 52 percent would forfeit that right . Of all D.C . Respondents , 84 percent believe Concealed Weapons Detection Technology should be delivered immediately into the hands of our police officers , whereas 16 percent believe it s hould not . Fifty-two percent of all D. C . Respondents believe the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology infringes on their Constitutional right . Fifty-six percent of all D.C . Respondents would forfeit their Const i tutional right for the use of concealed weapons six percent of all D. C . Respondents would forfeit t he ir Constitutiona l right for the use of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . However , of that 52 percent who believe the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology infringes o n their Constitutional right , 46 percent would forfeit that right . 49 T . D. Miethe , Fear and Wit hdrawal From Urban Life , Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , Vol . 539 , May 1995 , pp . 14-27 . 50 Balkan , S . (1979 ), Baumer , T. L. ( 1 978) , (1985) , Gordon , M. & Riger , S . (1991) , Young , V. D. (1992) , Valentine , G. (1 989 ), Smith , M. D. (1988) , Stanko , E . A . (1988) , (1992) , (1995)) . 51 Id . 52 Jacobs , H. (1971) , Parker , K. D. (1988) , Ortega , S . T . & Myl es , J . L . (1987) , Skogan , W. (1995) . 53 Akers, R. L ., LaGreca , A. J ., Sellers , C., & Cochran , J . (1987) , Atunes , G., Cook , F ., Cook , T ., & Skogan , w. (1977) , Baldassare , M. (1986) , Braungart , M. M., Brungart , R . G., & Hoyer , W. J . (1980) , Clemente , F . & Kleiman , M. B. (1977) , LaGrange , R. L. & Ferraro , K. F . (1987) , (1988) , ( 19 8 9) , Lebow i tz , B. D. ( 19 7 5) 54 Will , J . A. & McGrat h, J . H. ( 1 995) , White , M., Stanislav , V. K., Za hner , G. E . P ., Will , J . C . (1987) , Taylor , R . B. & Covi ngton, J . (1993) , Smith , B. L . & Huff , C . R. (1982) , Skogan , (1986) , Lavrakas , P . J . (1982 ), Lewis , D. A. & Maxfield , M. (1980) , Maxfield , M. G. (1984) , Merry , S . E . (1980) , Miethe , T . D. , (1995) . 55 Balkan , S . (1979) , Biderman , A. D., Johnson , L . A., McIntyre , J . & Weir , A. (1967) , Ennis , P . H., (1967) , Garofalo , J . (1979 ), Hindelang , M. J ., Gottfredson , M. R., 285 & Garofa l o , J . (1978), Ollenberger , J . (1981), Moeller, G. L. (1989) . 56 Roundtree (1998), Braungart, Braungart , and Hayer (1980 ) , Miethe (1995) , Clarke and Lewis (1982), Stafford and Galle 1984) , Hagen, J. (1972). 57 Cook , P. J . (1980) , Garofalo , J . (1981) , Lewis, o. A. & Salem, G. (1986) , Quinney , R. (1977), Reiss , A. J. , Jr . (1967) , Wilson , J . G. (1968) . 58 Grabosky 1995 ; Rountree 1998 ; Garofalo & Laub , 1978; Garofalo , 1979 ; Hindelang , Gottfredson , & Garofalo , 1978 . 286 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS I n c onclusion, prior research studies have shown that causes people to feel crime doe s affect fear, and f ear rapped, helpless , and oppress ed. These studies report t that fear-related feelings of apprehensiveness and o do desperate things in helplessness could cause peop le t pt to alleviate their fears . Doi ng desperate an attem ings might include a neighbor hood community voluntarily th search their home without p e rmitting police officers to o fficial warrants . In a Chicago c ommunity , police officers in a particular community to were permitted into any home g look for a suspect if they th ought the suspect was hidin 1 Acts such as this could be within that community ? sidered by most as drastic in nature . However , for a con olent crimes and shootings, Chicago community ridden with vi such an extreme act was desir able , and acceptable . The ommunity voted upon this acti on and it was accepted . It c proactive measure hoping to was the community ' s act as a mes of violence in the commu nity . deter further cri The extreme act t h is study id entifies as a premise-- tional right to permit voluntary forfeiture of a Co nstitu led Weapons Detection Technol ogy-- the use of the new Concea ay be considered extreme by s ome , and actually considered m e rate in the appropriate action by others , given the crim r 11 , 2001 . Nation , and especially in the wake of Septembe 287 The newly oppressed and insurgent face of the Nation versus putting into operation , possibly unconstitutional but e fe c tive , new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology may b e th e Litmus test set by Justice Marshall over a decade ag o . In a 1989 Court case , Justice Marshall argued that " grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency , when Constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure 2 ." A credible statement could be made that the Nation is now experiencing s uch a state of urgency like never before- - a criminal terrorist urgency . Howeve r , be ore September 11 , 2001 , a credible urgency wa s the high crime rate in the Nation , highlighting the fear of violence faced each day by c hildre n at their schools . Both of these urgencies were created with illegally concealed weapons that were used t o administer terror to the innocent . The measure identified in this study may be considered a n extreme proactive measure , however , befitting the 3 urgency anguished by Justice Marshall in Skinner . Th e drastic measure identified in the study- - the voluntary willingness of people to forfeit a Constitutional right--is specific to one of the more precious Const itutional rights- -the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures . The voluntary forfeiture addressed in the study was limited to , for the specific purpose of 288 poli e o f i ce r use of the CWDT to contro l c rim a nd t e rro rism in their Cities , and in the Nation , as a wh o l e . After analyzing the results of the survey resp onses , ceptable it could be inferred that such action would be ac a nd justifiable not only in small communities , but t hro ugh o u t the Nation. The study results ind icate that a majority of the Respondents is willing to for feit vo luntarily a Constitutional right . The study results f u r th e r indicate that the majority of the Res pondents are z e wi l ling t o pass initiative ~ and r e ferendu ms to l e gitimi forfeiting their Constitutional right for the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . T he ake this Respondents report that they would be willing to t action as a pr0active response to violent crim inal acts caused by con cea l ed guns and other concealed w eapons . Moreover , t he study results reveal that the m ajority o f th Respondents is of the opinion that the Conc ealed Weapons Detection Technologv could be identifi ed as a deterrent , and a solution to decreasing the gr owing violence caused by concealed guns and other co ncealed weapons in schools in Cities all over the Nat ion. The al results of this study were further interpreted and reve that Concealed Weapons Detection Technology co uld aid in quashing accusations of police profiling and p oli c e 289 preventing mistaken shooti ngs of unarmed brut a lit y , and in spects by police officers. su factors alone are formidab le enough to These positive t of nt wo rthy recognition of t he scientific developmen warra tion Technology , and what etec the new Concealed Weapons D new CWDT could contribute to criminology and all t he ing and creating humanity . Promoting more responsible polic notably so in high-crime a reas unity cohesion , ' p o li ce - comm e new Concealed are also laudable potenti al utilities of th Weapons Detection Technolo gy . ortant given premise of th is study is that One imp uaranteed privacy rights every citizen of this Nat ion is g es cted under the Fourth Ame ndment of the United Stat prote important premise of this Constitution . Another eq ually ce of dy , which was tested in th e study , is the importan stu n rmining whether the new C oncealed Weapons Detectio dete l o gy would , if utilized by police officers , vi o late Techn o by the Fourth Amendment . rotected the rights of the people p ity (51 %) of the The study reflects by a sm all major nts ' opinions that the use of the new Concealed Responde uld not violate that priva cy Weapons Detection Technolo gy wo found to violate right . Albeit , even if th e new CWDT were rights , the majority of th e Respondents a person ' s privacy those rights . were willing to voluntari ly forfeit 290 The study analyzes the hypothetica l balancing test, weighing the benefits of police officer use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology, against t he perceived rim i nal harms that would ens u e daily if the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology were not utiliz ed by police officers . The study reflects that the scale tips heavily in favo r of using Concealed Weapons Detecti o n Technology ; that the benefits outweigh the potential harm. Ultimately , according to the study survey responses , the majority of the Respondents indicate that they would vote by referendum if neces sary io permit th e voluntary forfeiture of their Fourth Amendment right in favor of the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology by police officers . The majority of the Respondents believe such use would aid in creating a sense of freedom from crime , violence , and terrorism in the minds of the public . Generally , it could be inferred that the general public a ls o would believe that far more good than harm would b e evide n ced from the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . Some of the potential positive effects of Concealed Weapons Detection Technology espoused in the study are : it co uld save lives ; preven t violence ; quell outcries of police brutality and racial profiling ; permit more feelings of personal safety for self and family members ; encourage a 29 1 mo e cohesive existence between police officers and their respective communities ; and prevent violence from terrorism . Some of t~e potential negative effects are: the possibility of searching an innocent person; the possibility of " over searching ," that is , searching too any people with minimum cause; and the possibility of m violating people ' s Fourth Amendment rights, albeit it harmlessly , given the nature of a CWDT search . It is publicly revealed through mass media reportin g rom that there are no schools " too good " to be insulate d f outbreaks o f violence within its confines . Consequently , chers would probably feel safer in their classrooms if tea they did not h ave to fear that students may be carr ying concealed weapons , and try to identify which studen ts niay be or may not be carrying a concealed weapon . Teac hers would probably be able to avoid that fear of an imm inent outbrea k of violence . The study results indicate a majority desire by the Respondents to place this new Concealed Weapons De tection Technology in all schoo l s . This majority was of th e opinion that t his placement of the new Concealed W eapons Detection Technology would be invaluable to the per sonal safety of teachers , students , and t he staff . If police officers presently assigned to patrol schools were equipped 292 wi t h the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology , school c hildren , faculty , staff, parents , police officers , the Nation-at-large possibly would have far less reason to fear an o ther Columbine High School massacre. This new CWDT could be used in schools as a normal staple in other Countries as well . Such Countries cou ld include Germany 4 ? Research studi e s ident i fy fear as a great oppressor , and fear generally is not cond ucive to l earning . One could generalize that fear d oes not stimulate academi c success in children . Thus , it could be hypothesized that fear may be a relevant con~ributing factor in test scores . If this premise is true , theoretically , it could be said that it could explain a certain Community ' s poor scoring on yearly , mandatory , academic achievement tests , in comparis on to another Community ' s good scoring on the same academic achieveme nt tests . This theory could be especial ly reveali ng if Community One were identified as a high crime- rate community , and Community Two we re ide ntifi ed as a low- crime -rate community . This subject is a valuable research project the author of this study wo uld like to conduc t . Th e study would e ntail employing , and publishing , such as during a school ' s general assembly , the use of the new CWDT in Community One(a) , and e mploying a pla cebo , rumors only of employing the new CWDT in Community One(b). Both Communities could 293 be located in high crime areas . After a year ' s time , the mandatory test scores wo ul d b e compared f rom t h e p r e vious year . Both test scores would be compared to Community Two(a) where the CWDT would be located a n d its capabilities published , and to Community Two(b) where only the placebo is placed , the rumors . Both schools would be located in low-crime-rate school areas . Analyses would be conducted for comb inations of wi t hin and without each of the s ubj ect test areas , and include pre- a nd post tests . Being mindful of the Columbine High School tragedy , as well as other school tragedies that followed , the study strongly indicates that it would be reasonable to immediately equ ip police officers with the n e w Concealed Weapons Detection Technol ogy identified in the study . Further , the study results could be interpreted to infer that it would not be unreasonable to equip responsible public school officials with the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . It appears , as discussed in the st udy , State laws and case law n ow permit such action . The survey results strongly reflect that a positive so lution to e nd tragedies of violent crime and terrorism ca used by concea l ed weapons is permitting the use of the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . To reiterate , the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology solution has many possibilities . To name a few : it could reconcile the 294 cry for t he right to bear arms espoused by t h e National Rifle Association ; it could protect unarmed suspects from accidental s hootings by police officers ; it could protect the public streets ; it could prevent further school killings ; and , inter alia , it could prevent future hijackings and further terrorism . 5 Many for ums , especially airports , could be equipped with the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology . The new Concea l e d Weapons Detection Technology could detect just the type of concealed weapons used on September 11 , 2 001 - -box cutters , as well as , inter alia , guns , knives , plastic explosives , drugs , and other contraband . Other forums to be equipped with the new CWDT could include : Law En forceme nt Departments , State and Federal ; school off i cia ls ; and the milita ry , parti c ularly during the time of war . The new Concealed Weapons Detection Te chnology also h as international potential . It could be hypothesized that the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology cou ld have aided the military in Vietnam , the schools in the United States a nd in Germany , and even the people of Israel . The media has reported many incidents of the Unit ed States military in Vietnam not knowing the difference between a frie nd , or foe . If t he mili tary had been equ ipped with the new Concealed Weapons Detection 295 nam , perhaps a n y un f a mi l i a r p ers on who Technolog y in Vi e t ave bee n silently a pproa c h e d t he military in Vietnam could h in only seconds , at a distan ce of up to 12 searc hed with efend against any c oncealed fee t , a nd qui c kly alerted to d gy weapo n s . Th e n e w Co nceal e d Weap o n s D etection Techn o l o i ng concea led we apon ry s uc h as has the utility o f detect ive , even strapped on explosives, inc luding plastic explos if wo rn under layers of clo thing . oreover , international regio ns such as the Middle M y ensue , could East , where ferocious battle s presentl reatly benefit from the new Concealed Weapons Detection g the new Concealed We apons Technology . For instance , active te c hnology De te c tion Technology could be used as pro ers , who enter publi c pla ce s to d e f e nd a gainst suicide b omb . wearing c oncealed explosive s under layers of clothing those Potentially hundreds of inn ocent lives especially suicide bombers strapped wi th killed and mutilated by explosives could be saved . The utility of the new ned Concealed Weapons Detection Technology was desig cifically to include detect ing such plastic explosives spe Vietnam and in the Middle a s those specifically used in East. ons Detection The engaging of the new Con cealed Weap potential proactive purpos es , is Technology , with its eacekeepers of limited only by the imagina tion of the real P 2 96 t he Wo rld. There is no millennium more appropriate for the d eve lopme nt and implementation of the new Concealed Weapons Detecti on Technology than the millennium of 2 00 2 , in which i t is bei ng d emonstrat e d that the past i s the pre s e n t , and h e f u t ure is now. Information generated by this study validat e s opinions held by professionals in the field regarding the prevalence o f fe ar of c rime and expected human behavior in response th e re o . However , the response of voluntarily forfeiting a Constitutional righ t , specifically a Fourth Amendment right to p e rmit the use by police officers of the new Concealed We apons De tection Technology warrants further inve stigation . Consequently , the author would like to repeat the analysis of t h is study in a more analytically s ophisticated manner . Measures of association such as Lambda would be utilized to calculate between nominal-level inde pendent and dependent variables and the Chi-Square statistic and Tukey ' s B to test for statistically significant differences between groups (~ . g . men and women) and a mong groups (~ . g . Caucasians , Blacks , etc . ) . The analys e s would inc l ude interval level depe ndent variabl e s such as number of victimizations , and analysis of variance wo u ld be employed to test for statistically significant (p- value of < 0 . 05) differences between groups . Tests would be c onducted to correct for possible biases introduced by 297 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - the fac that some household had multiple telephone lines and multiple elig ibles , a nd f or over- and under- representation of se l ected demographic subgroups , possibly using weighted data . Multivariat e analysis wou ld be cond u ed because so many of the significant variables are probably inter-rela ted , such as age , race , education, etc . ENDNOTES 1 Meares , Tracey L . and Dan M. Kahan . When Rights Ar e Wr ong , Chi cago ' s Paradox of Unwanted Rights , The Bosto n Re tv oi ew , May 1999 : pp .. The article encouraged c itizens exercise the ir right to present an initiative of referendums to express how they wish to be policed. A Chi cago Ho using Association passed an ordinance that was s upported by the majority residence of a crime-infested community . 2 See Skinner v . Railway Labor Executives ' Association , 489 U. S . 602 , 635 (1989) (Marshall , J . , dissenting) . 3 Id . 4 In late April of 2002 , in Erfurt , Germany , a former student went on a rampage at the Johann Gutenberg School and massacred 16 victims--killing 13 teachers , 2 students ' and one police officer , before turning the gun on himself . 5 The vast majority of Respondents believe that the new Concealed Weapons Detection Technology should be located in airports and on airplanes . This study was conducted before September 11 , 2001 , and even at that time , terrorism was o ne of the highest fear factors of the study . 298 APPENDIX DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND COLLEGEPARK,MARYLAND A SURVEY CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTION TECHNOLOGY THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO QUESTION WHETHER THE GENERAL PUBLIC WOULD BE WILLING TO VOLUNTARILY FORFEIT A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IF THEY THOUGHT DOING SO WOULD PREVENT CRIM E, AND lF SO, TO WHAT DEGREE WOULD CRIME HA VE TO BE PREVENTED: GREATLY, MODERATELY, OR MODESTLY? PARTICIPATING IN THIS SURVEY SHOULD BE OF NO RISK TO YOU, AND, AL THOUGH THERE ARE NO IMMEDIATE, DIRECT BENEFITS TO YOU, ULTIMATELY, IT IS HOPED THAT THIS SURVEY WILL BE OF VALUE IN PROMOTING NEW CRIME PREVENTION TECf-INOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES. YOU MAY ACCEPT OR DECLINE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY. ALL INFORMATION PROVIDED JN THlS SURVEY lS STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL, AND WILL BE USED FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES, ONLY. NAMES, OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION WILL NOT BE REQUESTED OF PARTICIPANTS. A RECORD WILL BE MADE OF HOUSEHOLD TELEPHONE NUMBERS, ONLY. TO MAINTAIN AN ANONYMOUS STATUS FOR PARTJCIPANTS, TELEPHONE NUMBERS RANDOMLY SELECTED WILL BE WRITTEN DOWN WITHOUT NAMES. THE INTERVIEWER WILL PLACE THOSE WRITTEN TELEPHONE NUMBERS IN A CONTAINER, AND RANDOMLY DRAW PARTICIPANTS, THEREFROM. TELEPHONE CALLS WILL BE MADE RANDOMLY TO HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, AND MADISON , WISCONSIN. YOU MAY STOP PARTICIPATING IN THE SURVEY AT ANY TIME, OR SKIP ANY QUESTIONS YOU DO NOT WISH TO ANSWER. HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT STUDY, YOU ARE ENCOURAG ED TO PLEASE FULLY COMPLETE THE SURVEY. THE SUCCESS OF THIS STUDY DEPENDS SOLELY ON YOUR TRUTHFULNESS. PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS AT ANY TIME DURING THE SURVEY. ANYTHING YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND, PLEASE ASK FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE INTERVIEWER. 299 Tl IA K YOU FOR YOUR FULL COOPERATION . WE WILL NOW BEGlN THE SURVEY. PLEASE CHECK ( ? ), OR SUPPLY THE APPROPRIATE RESPONS ~ FOR EACH QUESTION . I. WHAT IS YOUR AGE? 2. WHAT IS YOUR EX? MALE FEMALE 3. WHAT JS YOUR MAR.JTAL STATUS? MARRIED SINGLE DIVORCED WIDOWED 4. HOW MANY DEPENDENTS DO YOU HA VE? - - - (IF 0, PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 6) 5. WHAT IS THE AGE OF YOUR DEPENDENT(S)? 6. WHAT IS YOUR RACE? BLACK ASIAN CAUCAS IAN NATIVE INDIAN LATINO OTHER 7. WHAT IS YOUR EDUCATION? HIGH SCHOOL OR LESS SOME COLL ~GE COLLEGE GRADUATE GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL 300 8. WHAT IS YOUR PROFESS ION? ? 9. WHAT rs YOUR YEARLY INCOME l 0. WHAT IS YOUR RELIGIO N? PROTESTANT CATHOLIC JEWISH OTHER R CRIME PUNISHABLE BY A EANOR IS A MINO MISDEMEANOR: A MISDEM A CITY AL TY, OR IMPRISONMENT FOR LESS THAN A YEAR IN FINE, PEN L NOT IS SURVEY, MISDEMEANOR WIL JAIL. FOR THE PURPOSE O F TH INCLUDE TRAFFIC VIOLAT IONS. R ONY IS A SERIOUS CRIME P UNISHABLE BY DEATH, O FELONY: A FEL L PRISON FOR MORE THAN A IMPRISONMENT IN A STATE OR FEDERA YEAR. R CRIME? 11. WERE YOU EVER A VICT IM OF A MISDEMEANO YES NO EASE GO TO QUESTION 15. IF YES: IF NO, PL ? ES WERE YOU A VICTIM OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME 12. HOW MANY TIM A MISDEMEANOR 13. HOW LONG AGO WERE YOU LAST A VICTIM OF CRIME? E(S) COMMITTED? 14. WHAT WAS THE MISDE MEANOR CRIM 3 01 CRIME? ILY MEMBER EVER A VICT IM OF A MISDEMEANOR 15. WAS A FAM YES NO ASE GO TO QUESTION I 9. IF YES: IF NO, PLE OR MILY MEMBERS WERE A V ICTIM OF A MISDEMEAN 16. HOW MANY FA CRIME? A O WAS THE LAST TIME A F AMILY MEMBER(S) WAS 17. HOW LONG AG VICTIM OF A MISDEMEAN OR CRIME? T A AS THE MISDEMEANOR CR IME COMMITTED AGAINS 18. WHAT W FAMILY MEMBER(S)? VICTIM OF A FELONY CRI ME? 19. WERE YOU EVER A YES NO NO, PLEASE GO TO QUEST ION 23. IF YES: IF VICTIM OF A FELONY CRI ME? 20. HOW MANY TIMES WE RE YOU THE E YOU LAST A VICTIM OF A FELONY CRIME? 21. HOW LONG AGO WER RIME COMMITTED? 22. WHAT WAS THE FELO NY C 3 02 23. WAS A FAMILY M EMBER(S) EVER A VICTIM OF A FELONY CRIME? YES NO IF NO, PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 27. IF YES: 24. HOW MANYTJMES WAS YOUR FAMILY MEMBER(S)A VICTIM OF A FELONY CRIME? 25. HOW LONG AGO WAS THE LAST TIME A FAMILY MEMBER(S) WAS A VICTIM OF A FELONY CRIME? 26. WHAT WAS THE FELONY CRIME OF Wl-IICH YOUR FAMILY M EMB ER(S) WAS A VICTIM ? THE FOLLOWING DEFINITION OF CONCEALED WEAPONS IS BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY. CONCEALED WEAPONS: A CONCEALED WEAPON IS A GUN , KNIFE, OR ANY OBJECT OR INSTRUMENT INTENDED TO BE USED, AND COULD BE USED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL TO HARM OR THREATEN TO HARM ANOTHER INDJVIDUAL. JN A SERIOUS EFFORT TO PREVENT CRJME AND VIOLENCE, GOVERNMENT IS SPONSORING THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGY WHICH WILL DETECT CONCEALED WEAPONS ON THE HUMAN BODY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONCEALED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY JS TO BE ABLE TO DETECT CONCEALED WEAPONS BEFORE THEY ARE USED TO COMMIT CRIME AND VIOLENCE. THE NEW TECHNOLOGY WILL BE USED BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, AND WILL ELIMINATE AN fNITIAL HANDS-ON PHYSICAL SEARCH OF A SUSPECT TO DISCOVER ILLEGAL WEAPONS. 303 SCANNING THE INDIVID UAL 'S FULL- NOLOGY WILL INVOLVETHIS TECH THER XPLOSIVES, DRUGS, AND O CLOTHED BODY FOR W EAPONS, E GY WILL BE ABLE TO DE TECT TRABAND. THE NEW TE CHNOLO CON RUGS, NMETALLIC WEAPONS, PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES, D METALLIC AND NO MULTIPLE LAYERS OF D CONCEALED UNDER AND OTHER CONTRABA N LOGY OFFERS THE OPPO RTUNITY EW TECHNO CLOTHING. SOME OF TH E N CEALED AND REMOTE, HAND-HE LD DETECTION OF CON FOR RAPID NCE OF UP TO 12 FEET. DISTA WEAPONS OR CONTRAB AND AT A IF THIS NEW TECHNOLO GY: IATION LEVEL rs TRULY NONINTRUSIVE WITH M INIMAL RAD 1. (DOES NOT INV ADE THE BODY). TIMATE ANATOMICAL D ETAILS L IN 2. DOES NOT REVEA ED, E BODY PARTS) OF THE SUBJECT BEING SCANN (PRIVAT AKING F FALSE ALARMS (OF M 3. HAS A LOW PROBA BILITY O MISTAKES), G PLACES SUCH AS 4. CAN BE USED JN L ARGE-GATHERIN CES, AND SHOPPING MALLS, SCHO OLS, MEETING PLA AIRPORTS, AND TO D TAKE APPROXIMATEL Y THREE (3) SECONDS 5. WOUL ADMINISTER. HAT DELIVERING THIS T ECHNOLOGY 27. rs IT YOUR OPINION T EMENT OFFICIALS MEDIATELY INTO THE H ANDS OF LAW ENFORC IM ENCE? WOULD HELP FIGHT CR IME AND VIOL YES NO T OF THE CONSTITUTIO N OF THE N UNDER THE FOURTH AM ENDME GHT TO BE FREE NITED STAT ES, YOU ARE GUARANTEED THE RI U FROM IZURES. UNREASONABLE SEARC H AND SE 304 28. IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT USING THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY WOU LD BE AN INFRINGEMENT ON THAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT? YES NO 29. IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IF THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY OF DETECTING CONCEALED WEAPONS IS CONSIDERED AN INFRINGEMENT UPON YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT, AND FOUND LEGALLY TO BE AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GIVE UP THAT RIGHT, FOR THIS PURPOSE ONLY? FOR THIS PURPOSE ONLY MEANS PERMITTING LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO USE HANDS-OFF TECHNOLOGY TO DETECT METALLIC AND NONMETALLIC WEAPONS, PLASTIC EXPLOSIVES, DRUGS, AND OTHER CONTRABAND ON SUSPECTS, CONCEALED UNDER MULTIPLE LAYERS OF CLOTHIN G FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING PUBLIC SAFETY, AND PREVENTING CRIME AND VIOLENCE. YES NO IF NO, PLEASE GO DIRECTLY TO QUESTION 3 I. IF YES : 30. WHY WOULD YOU GIVE UP THIS RIGHT? TO FEEL MORE SECURE IN YOUR HOME TO FEEL MORE SECURE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO FEEL MORE SECURE ON PUBLIC STREETS TO FEEL MORE SECURE IN PUBUC PLACES TO PREVENT PROPERTY CRIME AND VIOLENCE (BURGLARY) TO DETER DRUG TRAFFICKING TO PROTECT LAW ENFORCERS FROM HARM TO DETER GANGS TO PREVENT RAPES TO PREVENT MURDERS TO PREVENT ROBBERIES TO PREVENT PHYSICAL ASSAULTS TO PREVENT HIJACKING AND TERRORISM 3 05 31. IN YOUR OPINION, IF THIS NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY WERE PERMITTED TO BE USED BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TODAY, WOULD YOU FEEL MORE SECURE, AND PROTECTED FROM PERSONAL CRIME AND VIOLENCE? YES NO 32. IN YOUR OPINION, IF THIS NEW CONCEALED WEAPONS DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY WERE PERMITTED TO BE USED BYLAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TODAY, WOULD YOU FEEL MORE SECURE, AND PROTECTED FROM PROPERTY CRIME? YES NO 33. IF WEAPONS DETECTORS ARE PERMITTED, WHERE WOULD YOU WANT WEAPONS DETECTORS LOCATED? IN HIGH CRIME AREAS, ONLY IN AIRPORTS IN BUS DEPOTS ON TRAVEL BUSES (AS OPPOSED TO CITY BUSES) IN TRAIN STA TIO NS ON TRAINS IN SUBWAY STATrONS ON SUBWAYS IN YOUTH-ORIENTED PLACES IN COURTHOUSES IN MOVIE THEATERS IN RESTAURANTS IN BARS AND NIGHT CLUBS IN ALL STORES IN BANKS IN HEAL TH SP AS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN HIGH SCHOOLS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES IN CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN PUBLIC LJBRARIES 306 fNION, IF USING THIS NEW C ONCEALED WEAPONS 34. fN YOUR OP GY DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PRIVACY RIGHTS DETECTOR TECHNOLO E CONTROL F INDIVIDUALS, WHO DO Y OU BELIEVE SHOULD HAV O ERE, AND HOW IT IS USED? (PLEASE SELECT ONL y OVER WHEN, WH ONE.) USE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMEN T DECIDES IT DUAL STA TES DECIDE ITS U SE INDIVI fNDIVIDUALS DECIDE BY V OTE, PER STATE SIS, COURTS DECIDE ON A CASE -BY-CASE BA D IF THE ISSUE IS ADJUDICAT E FEAR OF CRIME . DO YOU FEAR BEING A VIC TIM OF CRIME? 35 PERSONAL CRIME PROPERTY CRIME YES YES NO NO GO TO QUESTION 42. IF YE S: IF NO, PLEASE OU RA TE YOUR FEAR OF CR IME? 36. HOW DO Y VERY FEARFUL MOD ERA TEL Y FEARFUL HARDLY FEARFUL YOU MOST FEAR WILL VIC TIMIZE YOU? 37. WHAT AGE RANGE DO 4 - 14 15 - 25 26 - 36 37 - 47 48 OR OLDER DO YOU MOST FEAR OF CO MMITTING A PROPERTY 38. WHAT AGE RANGE CRIME? 4 - 14 15 - 25 307 26 - 36 37 - 47 48 OR OLDER TIME OF DAY ARE YOU MOST FEARFUL? 39. WHAT MORNING AFTERNOON EVENING AFTER MIDNIGHT -- EAR FOR YOURSELF FR OM 1 TO 13 RANK THE CRIME YOU F EING THE' 40. PLEASE ST, AND 13 B ITH I BEING THE CRIM E YOU FEAR THE MO W CRIME YOU FEAR THE LEAST. RANKING MURDER WITH A CONCEALED W EAPON MURDER ROBBERY A CONCEALED WEAPO N ROBBERY WITH BURGLARY (PROPERT Y CRIME) ROPERTY CRIME) WITH A BURGLARY (P CONCEALED WEAPON RAPE RAPE WITH A CONCEA LED WEAPON ICALLY ATTACKED) ASSAULT (BEING PHYS APON ASSAULT WITH A CON CEALED WE CARJACKING ING WITH A CONCEALE D WEAPON CARJACK DRIVE-BY SHOOTING 41. WHERE ARE YOU F EARFUL? YES NO IGH CRIME AREAS, ON LY IN H IN YOUR HOME IN YOUR NEIGHBORHO OD IN AIRPORTS IN BUS DEPOTS TO ON TRAVEL BUSES (AS OPPOSED CITY BUSES) IN TRAIN STA TIO NS ON TRAINS 3 08 IN SUBWAY STATIONS ON SUBWAYS IN YOUTH-ORIENTED PLACES IN COURTHOUSES IN MOVJE THEATERS IN RESTAURANTS IN BARS AND NIGHT CLUBS IN ALL STORES IN BANKS IN HEALTH SPAS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS IN HIGH SCHOOLS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES IN CHURCHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES ON YOUR JOB IN PARKING LOTS 42. DO YOU FEAR A FAMILY MEMBER(S) BEING A VICTIM OF CRIME? YES NO Ir NO, PLEASE GO TO THE END OF THE SURVEY. 43 . HOW DO YOU RATE YOUR FEAR OF CRIME FOR A FAMILY MEMBER? VERY FEARFUL MOD ERA TEL Y FEARFUL - - HARDLY FEARFUL 44. WHAT AGE RANGE DO YOU MOST FEAR WILL VICTIMIZE A FAMILY MEMBER(S)? 4 - 14 15 - 25 26 - 36 37 - 47 48 OR OLDER 309 45 . WHAT TJME OF DAY ARE YOU MOST FEARFUL FOR YOUR FAMILY MEMBER(S)? AFTER MJDNIGI-IT EVENfNG AFTERNOON MORNfNGS 46, PLEASE RANK THE CRIME YOU F AR FOR YOUR FAMJL Y MEMBER(S) FROM I TO 13, WITH 1 BEING THE CRIME YOU FEAR THE MOST, AND 13 BETNG THE CRIME YOU FEAR THE LEAST. RANKING MURDER MURDER WITH A CONCEALED WEA PON ROBBERY ROBB RY WITH A CONCEALED WEAPON BURGLARY (PROPERTY CRIME) BURGLARY (PROPERTY CRIME) WlTH A CONCEALED WEAPON RAPE RAPE WITH A CONCEALED WEAPON ASSAULT (BEING PHYSICALLY ATTACKED) ASSAULT WITH A CONCEALED WEAPON CARJACKING CARJACKING WITH A CONCEALED WEAPON DRIVE-BY SHOOTfNG 47. WHERE ARE YOU FEARFUL OF YOUR FAMILY MEMBER(S) BEJNG A VICTIM OF CRIME? IN HIGH CRJME AREAS, ONLY IN YOUR HOM E IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD IN HIGH CRIME AREAS, ONLY IN AIRPORTS IN BUS DEPOTS ON TRAVEL BUSES (AS OPPOSED TO CITY BUSES) 1N TRAIN STATJONS ON TRAINS IN SUBWAY STATIONS 310 ON SUBWAYS IN YOUTH-ORIENT ED PLACES IN COURTHOUSES IN MOVIE THEATE RS 1N RESTAURANTS UBS 1N BARS AND NIGH T CL IN ALL STORES IN BANKS 1N H ALTH SPAS IN ELEMENTARY S CHOOLS IN HIGH SCHOOLS N COLLEGE CAMP USES O CHES AND OTHER RELIGIOUS IN CHUR INSTITUTIONS IN PUBLIC LIBRAR IES IN PARKING LOTS ON THEIR JOBS MAY BE A CRIME O YOU FEAR . HOW MANY FAM ILY MEMBERS D 48 VICTIM? CTIM OF A BER(S) DO YOU FE AR BEING THE VI EM 49. WHICH FAMIL Y M CRIME? HOW MANY? MALE HOW MANY? FEMALE (S) YOU FEAR BEIN G THE S THE AGE OF THE FAMILY MEMBER 50. WHAT I VICTIM OF A CRIM E? BER(S) YOU NSHIP TO YOU OF THE FAMILY MEM 51. WHAT IS THE R ELATIO BEING A VICTIM O F A CRIME? FEAR HUSBAND WIFE CHILD HOW MANY? MALE HOW MANY? FEMALE MOTHER FATHER SIBLING 3 11 HO W MANY? BROTHER HOW MANY? SISTER OTHER RELATIVE HOW MANY? MALE HOW MANY? FEMALE IN WHAT AREA DO YOU LIVE? 52 . INNER-CITY -- SUB URBAN -- RURAL ISTRICT DO YOU L IVE? IN WHAT WARD OR D ---- 53 . OU RA TE YOUR N EIGHBORHOOD? 54. HOW SAFE DO Y HIGH CRIME MEDIUM CRIME LOW CRIME FOR ALL MINORS ? S 55. DO YOU BELIE VE IN CURFEW YES NO NG IN HIGH EVE IN CURFEWS FOR MINORS LIVI 56. IF NO, DO YOU BELI CRIME AREAS, ON LY? YES NO E END ND QUESTION 56, PLEASE GO TO TH STION 55 A IF NO TO BOTH QU E OF THE SURVEY. ING OULD BE RESPON SIBLE FOR SETT ELIEVE SH 57. WHO DO YOU B CURFEWS? FEDERAL GOVER NMENT __ STATE GOVERNM ENT T CITY GOVERNMEN PARENTS 312 58. DO YOU BELJEVE THAT CURFEW FOR MINORS WOULD ALLEVIATE C RIME IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD? YES NO 59. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CURFEW FOR MINORS WOULD ALLEVIATE CRIME IN YOUR CITY' S HIGH-CRIME AREA? YES NO 60. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT CURFEW FOR MINORS WOULD ALLEVIATE THE H1GH CRIME RA TE IN THE NATION? YES NO YOU HA VE REACHED THE END OF THE SURVEY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR FULL COOPERATION AND HONESTY WHILE PARTICIPATING IN THIS IMPORT ANT RESEARCH. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THE POSSIBILITY OF HOMES BEING WITHOUT TELEPHONES IN BOTH WASHINGTON, D. C. AND MADISON, WISCONSIN WILL BE TAKEN INTO CONS TD ERA TION AND NOTED IN THE ANALYSES. A TELEPHONE HOT LINE OR CRISIS LINE WILL BE KEPT AT HAND DURING THE TAKJNG OF ALL SU RVEYS TO PROVIDE FOR ANY RESPONDENT WHO MAY EXPERIENCE TRAUMA AFTER ACKNOWLEDGING VICTIMIZA TJON: MADISON (608) 25 1-2345 ; WASHJNGTON, D. C. (202) 387-6775 . 31 3 GLOSSARY is ing : This p roject imeter Wave Imag ration. Thi s 1. assive Mill litech Corpo new P lopment by M il eve rapid and under d rs the oppo rtunity for fe o 12 feet technology o f e of up t detection a t a distanc h. This tec hnology remote l searc direct phys ica lic weapons , without a nd nonmetal ould detect metallic a er contraban d w losives , dru gs , and oth exp of clothing. plastic multiple lay ers con c ealed u nder on c Radiation : The Raythe Electromagn eti concealed equency ject . This 2 . Low-Fr is pro ompany is de veloping th C olves illumi nating an logy inv agnetic or weapons tech no sity electrom idual with a low-inten the time de cay indiv easuring side " pulse and then m eavi rom the met al objects "H re-radiated energy f me f the he intensity and the ti o zed rried by the person . T haracteri ca dary radiati on can be c n - decay of the secon entified as a gun or no e " signature s " id and th etal object . m threatening : This conce aled c Gradient M easurements gneti e is being e xplored by 3 . Ma ons detectio n initiativ ilizing a weap gineering La boratory ut ational En in mineral Idaho N ting technol ogy used y zation , mil itar proven , exi s mental char acteri s a new exploration , environ . This i d submarine detection magnetomete r navigation , an gy-- xisting tech nolo onstruct application of an e ng to c technology i s attempti d as a stand - nsors . Thi s an can be us e se ble scanner th nner system, a more relia uch like an airport sca m doorways or alone unit , building rporated dir ectly into inco hallways . Image : This Computer tered X- Ray s and colet Imagi ng w- Level Sc at pment by N i 4 . Lo under develo hese technol ogy technology is T Diego , Ca lifornia . an ered x - rays , in Systems of S of scatt tremely low doses uter image- processing uses ex advanced comp ves , illega l conjunction with explosi to detect weapons , ncealed und er a techniques , contraband co her chemicals , and ot thing . person ' s clo rared Receiv ers : Wave and Lo ng-Wave Inf , which is s till Millimeter- proac h 5 . nology is a passive ap This tech 314 ------- being developed by the Lockheed-Martin Corporation. This technology would use a millimeter-wave receiver and a long-wave infrared receiver , either individually or together to measure the difference in temperature between a concealed weapon and an individuals body. When the two types of receivers are used in tandem and linked with a computer imaging system , it is expected that the probability of detecting a concealed weapon will increase substantially . 6 . Radar and Ultrasound : This development is considered an active approach that combin es radar and ultrasound , whi c h is being d eve loped by JAYCOR . The system operator would have to b e trained to interpret ultrasound images . It is expected that the radar component will be suitable for fixed-site operation , and that the ultrasound component will be suitable for either fixed-site or hand-held use. 7 . Low -Freq uency Magnetic -Imaging System : The Systems and Processes Engineering Corporation is developing an active-approach techno l ogy using a low-frequency magnetic imaging system s ui table for fixed-site operation . 315 LIST OF REFERENCES Akers , R . L. , La Greca , A . J., Se llers , C . , & Cochra n, J . ( 198 7) . Fear of cr ime a nd vic t i mizati o n a mo n g t h e elder l y i n different typ es of communit ies . Crim i no logy , _ll , 48 7 - 5 0 3 . Atunes , G. , Cook , F ., Coo k , T . , & Skogan , W. (1977) . Pat terns of p e rsonal c rime against the e ld e r ly : Fi ndi n gs . from a nationa l s urvey. The Geront o logist, l_2 , 321 - 327 c r i me . Baldas s are , M. (1986) . The elderly and f e ar of Soc i o l ogy and Socia l Research , ]_J__ , 2 18-2 2 1 . o f Ba lka n , S. (1979) . Victimization rates , s a fe ty and f e ar c rime . Social Problems , 26 , 343 - 358 . Ba ume r , T . L . (1 978) . Research on fear of crime in the Unit e d State s . Victimology , 1, 25 4- 264 . Bi d e rma n , A . D., Johnson , L . A., McIntyre , J . & We ir , A . ( 1 9 67) . Report on a Pilot study in the Dist rict of Co lumbia on victimization and attitudes towa rd law e nfo r ceme nt . Washington , DC : U. S . Governme n t Printing off i ce . a r Box , S ., Hale , C ., & Andrews , G. (1988). Ex plaining f e o f c rime . British Jo u rnal of criminology , 28 , 340- 3 56 . Braungart , M. M., Braungart , R . G., & Hoyer , W. J . (19 8 0) Age , sex , and socia l factors in fear of crime . Soc i o l ogi c al Foc u s , 1]_(1) , 55 - 66 . Bure au o f Justice Statistics (1994) Sourcebook of c riminal Justice statistics . Wa shington , DC : U. S . De p a rtment of Justice . Bureau of Justice Statistics (1995). Law en forcement management a n d admin istrative statistics , 19 93 : Data f o r individua l state and l ocal agen c i es with 100 or mo r e of fic e r s . Wa s hington , DC: U. S . Department o f Ju s ti ce . , Bureau of J u stice Statistics , Office of Justi ce Progra ms U. S . Department of Ju stice , 1998 . Clemente , F . & Kleiman , M. B. (1977) Fear of c rime in t h e United States : A mul tivariate analysis . Social Forc es , 56 , 5 1 9-531. 316 Cook , P. J . (1979) . The effect of gun availability on robbery and robbery murder : A cross-section of fifty c ities. In R. Haveman and B. B. Zellner (Eds . ) , Policy Studies Review Annual (pp . 743-781) . Beverly Hills, CA : Sag e . Coo k , P . J. , Molliconi, S ., & Cole, T . B. (1995). Regulating Gun Markets. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice , 86 , 59-92 . Covington , J . & Taylor , R. B. (1991) . Fear of crime in u r ban residential neighborhoods : Implications o f betwee n and within-neighborhood sources for current models . So ciological Quarterly , 32 , 231-249 . Davis , Thomas , A Hard Look At Wh at We Know (and Still Need to Learn About the Costs of the Exclusionary Rule) , including a report on a 1983 study by the American Bar Foundation . U. S . Comptroller General Study , Impact of the Exclusionary Rule on Federal Criminal Pros ecution (Apr . 19 , 1979) . D. LeBlanc , Fear , Rhetoric and Patterns of Crime , Justice Report , Vol . 11 , Issue 1 , 1995 , pp . 21 - 23 . E . Brown , Fear of Assault Among the Elderly , Paper Presented at the 1975 Annual Meeting of the Gerontological Society , Louisville , Kentucky , October 29 , 1975 . Elliot ' s Debates . A Century of Lawmaking , 1774-1873 . Debates in Convention . E . Madriz , Nothing Bad Happens to Good Girls : Fear of Crime in Women ' s Lives , University of California Press , Berkeley , Cal ifornia , 1997 . Ennis , P . H. (1967) . Criminal victimization in the United States : A report of a national survey . Washingt on , DC: U. S . Government Printing Office . Exclusionary Reform Act of 1995 , Congressional Record (House) , February 7 - 8 , 1995 . Farrall , S ., Bannister , J ., Ditton , J . & Gilchrist , E . Questioning the Meas u rement of the " Fear of Crime :' Findings From a Major Methodological Study , Th e British Journal of Criminology , Vol. 37 , Issue 4 , Autumn 1997 . 317 Florida Department of Juvenile Justice , Bureau of Data and Research , Fear of Crime & Related Perceptions in Florida 1997 , Research Digest , Issue 23 , July 1998 . Garofalo , J . (1979) . Victimization and fear of c rime . Journal of Research in Crime and De linquency , ~ ' 80 - 97 . Garofalo , J . (1981) . The fear of crime : Ca us es and c onsequences . Journal of Criminal Law and Crimin ology , ~ , 839 -857 . Goldsmith , J . & Tomas , N. ( 197 4) . Crimes against the e lderly : A continuing national crisis . Aging , 236 , 10-13 . Gomme . I . ( 1988) . The role of experience in the production of fear of cr ime : A test o f a causal model . Canadian Journal of Criminology , lQ , 67-76 . Heath , L . (1984) . Impact of newspaper crime reports on fear of crime : Multi - methodological investigation . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , r!__ , 263-276 . Hemenway , D., Solnick , S . J ., & Azrael , D. R. (1995) . ms and communi ty feelings of safety . Journal of Criminal Law a nd Cr imin o logy , _?_? , 121-132 . Hill , G. D., Howel l , F . M., Driver , E . T . (1985) . Gender , fear , and protective gun ownership . Criminology , ~ ' 541-55 2 . Hindelang , M. J ., Gottfredson , M. R., & Garofalo , J . (1978) . Victims of personal crime : An empirical foundation A for a theory of personal victimization . Cambridge , MA : Bal l inger . 19 Howell ' s State Trials 1029 , 1035 , 95 Eng . Reg . 807 , 817 - 18 (1765) . Joseph D. Grano , Rethinking the Fourth Amendment Warrant Requirement , American Criminal Law Review 19 (1982) 620 . J . Travi s and W. Bratton , Travis CN N Interview , "CNN Sunday Morning , ' January 12 , 1997 . Killias , M. (1990) . Vulnerability : Towards a better understanding of a key variable in the ge nesis off ar of crime . Violence a nd Victims , ~ , 97 -108 . Kleck , G. (1991 ). Point blank : Guns and violence in America . New Yor k : Aldine . 318 LaGrange , R. L . & Ferraro , K. F . (1987) . The elderly's fear of crime : A critical reexamination of the research. Research on Aging , 2, 3 7 2 -391. LaGrange , R . L . & Ferraro , K. F. (1988). Are older people afraid of crime? Journal of Aging Studies , ~ , 277 - 287 . LaGrange , R . L . & Ferraro , K. F. (1989) . Assessing age and gender differences in p erceived risk of fear of crime. Criminology , 27 , 697-719 . LaGrange , R . L . , Ferraro, K. F . & Supa ncic , M. (1992) . Perceived risk and fear of crime : Role of social and physical incivilities . Journal of Research in crime and De l inquency , 29 , 31 1-3 34 . Lebowit z , B . D. (1 975) . Age and fearfulness : Personal and situational factors . Journal of Gerontol ogy , 30 , 696-700 . Lewis , D. A . & Maxfield , M. (1980) . Fear in the Neighborhoods : An investigation of the impact of crime . Journal o f Re search in Crime and De linquency , 17 , 160-1 89 . Lewis , D. A . & Sa l e m, G. (1986) . Fear of crime : Incivilit y a nd the product i on of a social problem . New Brunswi c k , N. J .: Transaction Books . Liska , A. E ., Lawre nc e , J . J ., & Sanchiri co , A . (198 2 ). Fear of cr ime as a social fact . Social Forces , ?.Q , 760- 769 . Lofti n , C ., McDowall , D., Wiersema , B., & Cottey , J . (1991) . Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia . The New England Journal of Medici n e , 325 , 1615 - 1621 . Maxfield , M. G. (1984) . Th e limits of vulnerability in explaining fear of crime : A comparative neighborhood analysis . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , ~ ' 233 - 250 . McAneny , L . (1993 , December) . Th e Gallup Poll on crime : Most Americans again see crime on the rise . Gallup Poll Monthly , pp . 18-4 2 . Meares , Tracey L . and Dan M. Kahan . When Rights Are Wrong , Chicago ' s Paradox of Unwant e d Rights , The Boston Review , May 1999 : pp . _?2 . 319 of er iminal vi ctimization: The , G. L . ( 198 9) . Fear oeller al composition . M ood raci effect of neigh borh 08-219. Sociological In quiry , ~ , 2 ords Administra tion, A More rchives and RecA . Constitution March National U. S Uni on : The Cr eation of the , Perfect 26 , 1999. Arrest ees and stit ute of Just ice . (1995) . et . National In al firearms ma rk Gu ns : Monitorin g the illeg Office . DC : U. S . Gove rnment Printing Washington, . (1969) . Firea rms and Zimring , F . E bmitted to the Newton , G. D. & su American life : A staff report ce in and Prevention of violen nal Commission on t h e Causes ing Office . Natio n , DC : U. S . Go vernment Print to Violence . Was hing nd fear of 1) . Criminal v ictimization a 8 Ollenberger , J . (19 , 1, 101-118 . crime . Researc h on Aging ace and gender . L . (1987). R Ortega , S . T . & Myles , J interactive mod e l with age . of crime : An effects o n fear Criminology , ~ , 133-152 . ~ ial exual violence and soc of Pain , R. (1991) . Space , s analyses ing geographica l and feminist ntrol : Integrat ss in Human Geo graphy , 15 , co gre women ' s fear o f crime . Pro 415-431 . te differences in ker , K. D. ( 198 8) . Black-Whi cial Par e . The Journal of So perceptions of fear of crim Psychology , 128 , 487 - 494 . ). Fear of crim e : An Ray , M. C. (199 0 l Spectrum, __lQ , arker , K. D. & P ciologica ent of related factors . So assessm 29 -40 . sue , 1995 . " ' T he Pol i ti cal , Wendy M. and John Tran d , Rahn me ." A Report t o the NES Boar Significance o f Fear of Cri nnesota . University of M i oundup : An es , Evaluat i on of Operation R r ear of R. E . Vogel , S . Tor l of Gangs to R educe Crime , F n t h e Contro ions , Policing , Experiment i nity Relat ime , a nd I mprov e Po l ice Commu Cr sue 1, 1998 , pp . 38-53 . Vol. 21 , Is 8). Fear of cri me in publi c M. & Burby , R. J . (198 he , W. ior , 20 , 700-72 0 . Ro ent and Behav housing . Envir onm 320 nd Rose , & McClain , P. D. (19 90) . Race , place , a H. M. ate Univers ity of New York Press . risk . New York : St er 1980 ; Miethe tree 1998 ; Braungart , Braungart, and Hay Roun 82 ; Stafford and Gal l e 1984 . 19 1995 ; Clarke and Lew is rime - Fear ee , P . W. , 1998 , "' Re examination of the C Rountr quency, , " Journal of Researc h in Crime and Delin Linkage 35 : 341-72 . (1989) . Community Sampson , Robert J . , & Groves , W. Byron l Disorganizat i on The ory . esting Socia Structure and Crime : T , 774 - 802 . 94 American Journal o f Sociology r , R . A . (198 5) . Vic timization and the Sharp , P . M. & Dodde e : Some consequences by age and sex . fear of crim rary Sociology , 22 , International Journa l of Contempo 149161 . . D. (1993). Gun Acq uisition and heley , J . F . & Wrigh t , J S ples . Washington , DC : uvenile sam possession in selecte d J ting Office . U.S . Government Prin 995) . Reactions to C rime a nd Violence , Skogan , W. G. (1 emy of Political and Social Acad Annals of t h e Americ an Science , May , 539 , p p . 1-225 . . R . (19 82) . Crime i n the country : Smith , B . L . & Huff , C ural citizens . The vulnerability an d victimi zation of r l Justice , 1.Q , 27 1-282 . Journal of crimina of crime . H. & Hill , G. D. (1 99l ) a . Perceptions Smith , L ' and fear of crime . S ociological Focus , ~ seriousness 3 15-327 . imization and fear Smith , L . H. & Hill , G . D. (199l)b . vict Justice and Behavior , 1-Q , 217-239 . of crime . Criminal zation d , M. C . & Galle , O. R . (1984) . Victimi Staffor of crime . Criminolo gy , k , and fear rates , expos ure to r is 22 , 173-185 . 8 8 ) . Hidden violence against women . In Stanko , E . A . (19 . J . Pointing (Eds . ) , Victims : A new deal M. Maguire & iladelphia : Open Univ ersity Press . Ph e of fearful women : G ender , he cas Stanko , E . A . (1992) . T inal fety and fear o f crim e . Women and Crim personal sa Justice , i , 117-135 . 32 1 , E . A. (1995) . Women , Crime and Fear, Annals of the Stanko merican Academy of Political and Social Science, 539 , 46- A 58 . Stkin s , S , Husain , S . & Storey , A. (1991) . Influe nce of Street Lighting on Crime and Fear of Crime , Crime Prevention Unit Paper , 1991 . ural Taylor, R . B. t & Covington , J . (1993) . Community struc c hange and fear o f crime . Social Problems , iQ , 4- 3 95 . Tay l o r , R . B . & Hale , M. (1986). Testing alterna te, mod e l s of fe ar of rime. The Journal of Criminal Law an d Cr imino l o g y , ]__J__ , 151-189 . T . D. Miethe , Fear a nd Withdrawal From Urban Life , Annals o f the American Academy of Political and Social Scien ce , Vol . 539 , May 1995 , pp . 14 - 27 . oseland , R . W. ( 1982) . Fear of crime : Who is mos t T rable . Journa l of Criminal Justice , 1.Q , 199-209 . vulne Violence Policy Cent er (1995) . Firearm facts. Washing ton , DC : author . Warr , M. (1984) . Fear of victimi zation : Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Social Science Quarterly , ~ , 681-702 . Warr , M. & Stafford , M. (1 983) . Fear of v i ctimiz ation : A look at proximate ca us es . Social Forces , 61 , 103 3-1043 . White , M., Stanislav , V. K., Za hn er , G. E . P . , & Will , J . C . (1987) . Perceived crime in the neighborhood and m ental health of wome n and c h ildren . Environment and Be havior , 12 , 588-613 . J . A . McGrath , J . H. (1 995 ) . Crime , neighborhoo d Will , & perceptions , and the underclass : The relationship between fear of crime and c las s position . Journal of Crim inal Justice , 23 , 163-176 . Wilson , J . Q. (1968) . The urban unease : Commun ity vs . city . Th e Public Interest , 11_ , 25-39 . Wilson , J . Q. (1994 , Marc h 20) . Just ta ke away th eir guns . The Ne w York Times Magazine , 46-47 . Wiltz , C . J . (1982) . Fear of crime , criminal victimization a nd e lderly Blacks . Phylon , il_(4) , 283- 2 94 . 322 . (1985) . The armed cri minal in Wright , J . D. & Rossi , P . H felons . Washington, DC _: _ Amer i c a : A survey of in carcerated Government Printing Off ice. U. S . ssi , P. H., & Daly, K. ( 1983). Under the Wright , J. D., Ro in Ameri ca. New York: ce gun : Weapons , crime , an d violen Aldine. 981) The fear of crim e : Ca use s and Yin, P . (1 i minal Law and criminolo gy , 72 , consequences . Journal of Cr 839-857 . r of victimization and Young , V. D. ( 1992) . Fea Justi ce timization rates amo ng women : A paradox? vic Quarterly , 1_ , 419-441 . irearms , crime , and crim inal Zawitz , M. W. (1996) . F . S . Firearm injury from cr ime . Washington , DC : U Justice : e . Government Printing Off ic 323