Procedural and Substantive Law

Procedural and Substantive Law Comparison: The cases of Terry v. Ohio (1968) and State v. Perkins (2003) both deal with issues of search and seizure as explained in the fourth Amendment to the United States' Constitution. According to this Amendment, police or government officials are not allowed to perform unlawful searches and seizures.

This was written in response to how the colonists lived under British rule wherein soldiers could enter the homes of any colonists at any time, and take any goods and materials they desired regardless of whether they had a cause to do so. Contrast: The major difference between the two cases seems to be that the case of Terry v. Ohio helped to expand the powers of police in their investigations, whereas State v. Perkins proved to limit the abilities of the police in terms of confiscation of weapons.

During the Terry v. Ohio case, there was a clear and present danger that the three young men were going to commit a crime. They were behaving in a suspicious manner which a trained officer would identify as likely linked to a potential crime, which turned out to be the case. Because of this, the courts ruled that the firearms seized should be admissible. In the State v.

Perkins case, police seized some eighty-four guns from the household of one Frank Perkins after they were called on a domestic abuse call. Perkins was found in his bedroom and not using any weapons at the moment. Despite that there were weapons within the home, there was not suitable cause to take them. Analysis: In terms of further legislation, the case of Terry v.

Ohio ensured that from that point on, police searches of a person were legal without probable cause, provided the officer believed that the person had just or was about to commit a crime (Terry 1968). If the police have a reasonable belief that the individual in question is armed and poses a potential danger to innocent people, then the police are within their rights to search that person including frisking the person's body or searching their person, car, or possessions.

This is now referred to as a "stop and frisk" because it does not require a permit or warrant by the police. These frisking are only permissible in terms of looking for weapons with which a potential culprit could pose a danger to himself or others. The search does not permit the officer to look for contraband items such as narcotics because they are not dangerous to others within a close enough time frame to warrant unpermitted investigation.

Challenges to the case or further trials which have tried to use Terry v. Ohio as precedent have been overturned unless both components are found; namely that there is a weapon suspected and that a crime is imminent. In State v. Perkins, it was found that since there was no imminent danger to police or to the inhabitants within the.