Terry Vs. Ohio, 392 U.s.

In 1963, police officer Martin McFadden witnessed 3 men acting unusually. The men were named John Terry (petitioner), Richard Chilton, and Carl Katz. Terry and Chilton were alternating walking back and forth on an identical route, both stopping to look in the same store window. This happened 24 times. At each completion of the routine, they met at a corner to talk. At one of the meetings, another man (Katz) joined them briefly. When the officer followed the men, he saw them meet up with Katz once again in front of a different store. At this point, McFadden introduced himself as a police officer and asked them their names. When Terry spoke under his breath, he was turned around and patted down over his clothes. He was found to have a pistol in his possession, so all three men were brought into the store for a search. The men were ordered to stand against the wall with their arms raised while McFadden patted them down. Chilton was found with a revolver, but Katz was found with nothing. None of the men were patted down underneath their outer wear until found with weapons already. All three men were taken to the police station, and Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. In an 8-1 decision, the court decided that the search performed by McFadden was

On October 31st, 1963, an incident took place involving Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden and community members John W. Terry and Richard Chilton which resulted in the historical 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio. The decision ruled that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when stopped or searched by a police officer, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is committing a crime and has reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and dangerous.

Before the Supreme Court case of Mapp vs. Ohio in 1960, the states were able to interpret the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which covers the search and seizure of individuals and their property. Interpretation caused the states to disagree on what was justifiable search and seizure according to the constitution. Under the Fourth Amendment, a court issued warrant along with probable cause was required for search and seizures. The states all had different opinions of the definition of what an unreasonable search or seizure was. Therefore, each state’s enforcement was different.

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

On October 31, 1963 a Cleveland Police Detective stopped and arrested three men outside a department store window. The officer charged two of the men with carrying concealed weapons. One of the men involved in this stop and frisk, John W. Terry, challenged the ruling, stating that it was against his 4th Amendment rights to be searched for weapons by an off duty police officer without probable cause for arrest. On June 10, 1968 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the policeman stating he had more than enough reason to stop these men and conduct a search. This case has been used as a guideline in many other rulings since 1968 that involve what may or may not be an “unreasonable search and seizure” under the 4th Amendment.

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

On October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, Officer Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a storefront acting suspiciously. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look in a store window. At the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store window as on his way down. Upon reaching the other man, the two mingled and talked to each other. Officer McFadden witnessed these men do this several times. Officer McFadden concerned the men were “casing a job”, then followed the two men, and watched as they met up in front of Zucker’s Store. At this point, Officer McFadden walked up to the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked for their names. He asked the first man, Terry to turn around. He frisked him, and, feeling a pistol frame inside Terry 's overcoat, ordered the men into the store. Terry and Chilton were charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and were each sentenced to three-years in prison. The arrest of Terry set in motion a series of lower court cases that ultimately led to the landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Terry v. Ohio on June 10, 1968. The question that arises in the Terry v. Ohio case has to do with the Fourth Amendment, specifically the line "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

A right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared by the Fourth Amendment, but how one is to translate the guarantee into concrete terms is not specified. Several possible methods of enforcement have been suggested over time; however, the Supreme Court has settled, not without dissent, on only one as an effective means to make real the right.

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

Law enforcement officers are known to “hunt for property or communications believed to be evidence of crime, and the act of taking possession of this property,” also known as conducting a search and seizure. It is a necessary exercise in the ongoing pursuit of criminals. Search and seizures are used to produce evidence for the prosecution of alleged criminals. Protecting citizens from arbitrary searches, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution is our right to limit and deny any unreasonable search and seizure. More often than not, police officers tend to take advantage of their authority by the use of coercion. Although it is unlawful, most citizens do not know what police officers can and cannot do in respect of their human rights.

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police.

Although not as benign as an officer merely asking questions of a suspect, it is not as highly intrusive as an arrest. Given its intermediate status, questions arise whether it comes under the full protection of the Fourth Amendment. If ensconced fully within the Fourth Amendment, then it amounts to an arrest and would need probable cause to be valid. If it falls under the Fourth Amendment, but is considered less than an arrest, then to what extent is it protected against unreasonable searches and seizures? Those questions were answered by the court in Terry v. Ohio. Terry was decided in favor of the police and considered one of the most significant cases in law enforcement because it governs a sensitive area in police patrols. It is used daily in policing and considered an effective tool in crime prevention and officer protection. Without it, police efforts aimed at proactive policing are severely curtailed

I will be taking you the reader through the crucial aspects of the criminal justice process; searches and seizures, arrest and interrogation. I will begin by discussing how the Fourth Amendment entails the citizens right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as how it is a critical aspect to policing, since it structures how police are to investigate a crime and the suspects who commit the crime. Stop and Frisk is another part to searching a suspect, the officer would have reasonable suspicion a crime has been committed, will be committed, or is about the be committed. I will then elaborate on the procedures officers endure also known as “Terry Stops” from the landmark case Terry v. Ohio. There’s a rule I will be discussing in detail, which is known as the exclusionary rule, which is one that put restriction on police power and evidence from searches and seizures. Another piece to this puzzle are warrants, any time an officer begins to search either persons or the premises they are required to obtain a warrant, these searches can be done either before an arrest or after. This goes as well as for arrest warrants officers must prove that there is probable cause that a criminal act has been committed, they may then arrest the individual. After an arrest has been completed they then are subject to interrogation, police are required to

In the Supreme Court case of South Dakota v. Opperman in 1976, it was decided by local police that it was not a violation of Opperman’s fourth amendment rights for the marijuana that had been found after police had impounded the vehicle. The Supreme Court then reviewed it, and found “that local police violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, when they conducted a routine inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded by police for violations of municipal parking ordinances.” (Supreme Court of United States, 1976) These cases helped add limits to the searches that police officers are allowed to conduct without a warrant, and when pulling someone over. Another case was New York v. Belton. In this case, a police officer pulled over a car with four men, and smelt marijuana. (Chase, 2006) The Supreme Court held that an officer might search the passenger side of an automobile after an arrest. (Chase, 2006) These cases helped bring more light to what police officers were allowed to do when they were searching vehicles they had pulled