Terry v. Ohio No Right

Terry v. Ohio

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.' Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 1001, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891).

The above is what the "Warren Court" (the era in which Chief Justice Warren headed up the Supreme Court during the 1960s) guarded carefully in most cases. However, in the case of Terry v. Ohio, where a plainclothesman patted down three suspects and arrested them after finding pistols on two of them, the "Warren" Court found that Officer McFadden had the right to pat down the outer garments of the men purely for his and public protection, and because he had reasonable cause to believe they might be armed. Believing the three had the intent to rob a store, he was investigating them as part of his duty as a police officer. This search and seizure of the pistols belonging to Terry and Chilton was considered reasonable search and seizure.

The Supreme Court looked at whether or not the petitioner, Terry, was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the street in Cleveland and the Supreme Court debated whether or not, in this circumstance, the petitioner's right to personal security was violated. In particular, they debated the question of the power of the police to "stop and frisk" anyone they consider "suspicious." The pivotal point was whether this "frisk" could be considered an unlawful and warrantless "search" of the person of Terry (by the time the appealed case got to the Supreme Court, Chilton, the second person with a pistol, Chilton, had died.)

Officer McFadden had no proof that the suspects were about to commit a crime, but based his stop and frisk on his suspicions which were, in turn, based on his experience and observation of the behavior of the three men. According to the Ohio Court of Appeals, the simple 'stop and frisk' amounted to only a "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," which, they found, can properly be imposed upon the citizen in the interest of effective law enforcement." (392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968).

The Court adopted the notion that Officer McFadden was protecting himself and others and found that there was probable cause to search the suspects. They "concede the officer's right to conduct a search" incident to the arrest and when, in his considered opinion, he was certain that the men were going to commit a crime. Only Justice Douglas dissented, saying that he could not find the search and seizure to be constitutional under Fourth Amendment standards, as there was not probable cause to believe a crime had been committed or was in the process of being committed or was about to be committed. He believed the police were being given powers that infringed upon personal liberties when they could detain and frisk anyone they considered "suspicious." He made the statement that "if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime" (392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968).