Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Implicit in this concept is the idea that unlawful searches cannot and should not be performed by law enforcement. The Court, in Terry v. Ohio, essentially reversed the exclusionary rule principle, said it applied only to the gathering of evidence and that when it came to keeping people safe or protecting people, law enforcement agents could search/frisk because they were not attempting to "gather evidence" but rather to prevent a crime or stop a criminal. This was, of course, mere wordplay. The Court gave law enforcement the right to stop and search anyone and everyone so long as they could later "state in words" their reason (easily contrived) for doing so. In other words, this case overrode the Fourth Amendment and effectively ended the peoples' guarantee of protection against unlawful searches.
In this case, Terry and two other individuals were identified by officer Mcfadden on a Cleveland street in what appeared to be an instance of the three men casing a storefront in order to perform a robbery. Mcfadden approached the three individuals, identified himself as an officer, patted down Terry, found a gun in his coat pocket, patted down the second individual, found another gun and patted down the third but found nothing.…
The officer stopped and searched the three men, and recovered arms from two of them. Terry was found guilty of having covered arms and was send to prison for three years. Is the investigation and confiscation of Terry and other men against the Fourth Amendment? The Court in an 8-to-1 decision held that the investigation done by the officer was sensible under the Fourth Amendments and that the arms
On appeal, Terry argued that the conviction should be thrown out because the search that produced the evidence of the weapon in his possession was improper because it was an impermissible search of his person without a warrant or probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment (Schmalleger, 2009). The Supreme Court decided that the type of search the police officer conducted was not prohibited by the 4th Amendment. Instead,
The fact that Fred was eventually allowed to leave is less important in that determination than Fred's state of mind and reasonable belief about whether or not he was still free to leave once the police informed him that he was actually a suspect in Wilma's murder (Dershowitz, 2002; Zalman, 2008). Search and Seizure and Unlawful Arrest Issues: The fact pattern does not make clear whether or not the police actually
Decisions of Rehnquist & Warren The field of constitutional law, at least in the area of criminal procedure, has been an interesting study for the past fifty years. Unlike other areas of the law, the study of criminal procedure has undergone major transformations as a result of the decisions of the last three courts, the Warren, Burger and Rehnquist courts. These three courts have changed the legal landscape in the cases
4th Amendment's evolution and history, together with the "search and seizure" law. 4th Amendment Background People's rights of being secure in personal effects, papers, houses and persons, against unreasonable seizures and searches, may not be breached, nor shall any warrants be issued, but in case of probable cause, which is supported by affirmation or oath, and describes, particularly, the place that must be searched, or the things or individuals that should
Stop and Frisk: The Efficacy of This Technique Stop and frisk is one of the most controversial techniques used by the NYPD to reduce crime. Stop and frisk, as its name suggests, is when police officers stop pedestrians on the street and frisk them for drugs, weapons, and other illegal substances. On the surface, it might seem as if this is a violation of the Fourth Amendment which prohibits searches and