Brief: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Facts: While patrolling on a downtown beat in Cleveland, detective Martin McFadden observed two men who were standing in the corner of the street. They repeatedly walked up and down the same street, while constantly looking through a store window. After stopping and chatting with one another, they began walking up and down the street again, observing the same store window. A third man joins, but left after a brief conversation. Detective McFadden believed that the men were “casing” the store for a potential robbery, so he approached and questioned the two. Due to the totality of the circumstance and the reasonable suspicion, McFadden did a quick search (frisk) of the petitioner and found a concealed weapon in the outside pockets of his jacket. He was later charged with having a concealed weapon, in which he appealed.
Issues: Did detective McFadden violate Mr. Terry’s 4th amendment rights by doing a quick search (frisk) without probable cause?
Procedures: John Terry appealed the decision. He claimed that his 4th amendment rights were violated since it “protects the people” from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Held: No, The courts affirmed the conviction.
Reasoning/Analysis: Although Mr. Terry and his accomplice didn’t commit any crimes, but were acting very suspicious, it is a police officer’s job to investigate suspicious activity. Detective McFadden had reasonable suspicion that a crime was going to
Terry v. Ohio Decision: 8 votes for Ohio, 1 vote(s) against Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment “In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted…
increase their chances of a conviction. Search and seizure is a very broad subject when it comes to law enforcement; it is also an important topic that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on in several incidents. An important case to elaborate on is the Mapp v. Ohio case; this was a landmark case in criminal procedure. The U.S. Supreme court decided that the evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts. The circumstances of this case…
government, but to state and local public officials and entities as well. Protection of speech by the First Amendment is intended to encourage the free flow of ideas and to protect individuals whose speech may be considered unpopular or dissentious. Tinker v. Des Moines (393 U.S. 503 (1969)) Tinker (Petitioner) was suspended from school for showing his support of the anti-war movement. Student speech may be regulated when such speech would materially and substantially interfere with the discipline and operation…
uncertain value in a definition.” (Sussex Land & Live Stock Co. v. Midwest Refining Co., 1923), and “Not extreme. Not arbitrary, capricious or confiscatory” (Public Service Comm’n v. Havemeyer, 1936), and “That which is fair, proper, just, moderate, suitable under the circumstances, fit and appropriate to the end in view, having the faculty of reason, rational, governed by reason not immoderate or excessive, honest, equitable, tolerable” (Cass v. State, 1933). These cases clearly have their own perceptional…
amendment rights, despite some questionable circumstances. Findlaw (2012, pargraph.1) The law states, “Under Traffic laws in all states all motor vehicles are required to have certain equipment to be installed and operating correctly.” Just like Terry v. Ohio where intrusiveness is minimal, the standard of reasonable suspicion is sufficient, just like we see in this stop. (Ch03 ppt) This stop was not based on instinct on Officer Smith was told that an older model gold Pontiac was recently spotted…
d other illegal contrabands. This conflict first started when the United States Supreme Court first sanctioned it from the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment declared Stop Question and frisk to be constitutional after 40 years passed from Terry v. Ohio. In order for the officer to conduct a frisk, they must believe with their experience and reasonable suspicion that the individual person poses a threat to the public and is endangering the safety of others. A stop is different from an arrest…
Discussing the 4th Amendment Alex Smith American Military University Discussing the 4th Amendment The 4th amendment is one of the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights. It’s also one of the most common amendments that are violated amongst the citizens in the United States by law enforcement. Not everyone has common knowledge of their 4th amendment. Citizens aren’t aware of what really a search is and what really is considered a seizure. This is something that needs to be known because…
October 28, 2014, from http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/vehicle-search-and-seizure.html#sthash.OStGTYfY.dpuf According to Terry v. Ohio, Officer Smith had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle. She saw what looked like a broken taillight, and the car also fit the description of a car used in a recent killing of a police officer. The 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio, developed the concept of “stop and frisk”. Stop and frisk is less than an arrest. It is the temporary detention of a suspicious…
In this case the Individual rights are being violated by 2 officers but is protecting the common good. The officers did protect the common good but could have gotten a search warrant to properly arrest Jeffers and it wouldn’t have violated his rights or the fourth amendment. The case of Jeffers v. United States (1951) when two police officers entered the hotel Jeffers was staying at without a warrant and neither him or his aunt were present. The officers searched the place and found 19 bottles of cocaine and one bottle of codeine, he claimed the drugs were his and arrested him…
Many people have debatable ideas of what privacy, invasion of privacy, and privacy rights are, but nonetheless most people have ideas or an opinion on such topics. “Definitions of privacy can be couched in descriptive or normative terms. People may view privacy as a derivative notion that rests upon more basic rights such as liberty or property.” (Moore, 2008, p. 411) Even with the many explanations of privacy rights that we individually claim, we should all be able to agree that to some degree our…