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.
Within the domain of criminal law, Amendment IV’s safeguards with regard to searches and confiscations cover: Law enforcers’ physical capture or "seizure" of individuals, using stops or arrests;
And law enforcers’ inspections of articles and places wherein citizens lawfully expect their privacy to be respected (such as their person, homes, temporary lodgings (e.g., hotel rooms), offices, clothes, bags,cars, etc. (Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw).
Amendment IV offers safeguards to citizens in matters related to investigations and arrests, and forbids the utilization of articles seized without authority as court-room evidence (Search and Seizure and the Fourth Amendment – FindLaw). How much protection a citizen enjoys in any given instance is dependent on apprehension nature, searched location characteristics, and circumstances of search. However, for stopping or keeping any citizen in custody, law enforcement officials need to have satisfactory suspicion (in other words, impartial, soundgrounds to believe the apprehended individual was potentially embroiled in some wrongdoing) (What’s the Difference Between an Arrest and a Detention? ). This differs from an all-out arrest involving handcuffs and publicly transporting the suspected individual to the police station. Officials are allowed to detain people using only probable cause or an official warrant.
The defendant’s party made a move to suppress evidence. While the prosecution’s declaration that the weapons were confiscated in the course of a lawful search and seizure operation...
Hence, quizzing the suspects was justified, and to guarantee his personal protection, the official was entitled to patting down their external clothes under the reasonable suspicion that the two may be bearing arms (Terry v. Ohio | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute). Investigatory "stops" were differentiated from detentions, as were superficial "frisks" for any weapon from a complete inspection for criminal evidence. Hence, the above reasoning and my personal perusal of the case lead me to concur with the court’s ruling. Amendment IV safeguards against unfair searches, confiscations and detentions, applied to States using Amendment XIV, provides protection to individuals and not places. Hence, it is just as applicable to pedestrians on the road as individuals in their homes or other places.
The phrase “reasonable suspicion” involves suspecting an individual to have engaged in wrongdoing, or his/her potential to engage in wrongdoing in the future, on the basis of certain situations and information. It can help vindicate investigatory stops. Reasonable suspicion isn’t simply a gut feeling that an individual has perpetrated crime; however, it demands for fairly less evidence as compared to probable cause. If an individual, for instance, had on his person articles (say, a wire hanger) which can help perpetrate an offense and was peeking in…
" (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
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
Terry vs. Ohio Terry Vs Ohio The issue of what constitutes a violation of the fourth amendment forms the basis of the argument in the case of Terry vs. Ohio. In this case the petitioner Terry was stopped and frisked by the officer on the streets. A brief description of the situation is as follows. Detective McFadden was walking his beat when he observed two individuals who in his opinion were "casing"
Terry v. Ohio case, providing information on the concerned parties, case facts, previous proceedings, arguments and issues, court decision and rationale for the decision. Parties Involved The People of the State of Ohio and John W. Terry Facts Martin Mcfadden, a law enforcement official, saw the complainant engaged in a long, serious conversation with a second man, on a quiet street corner whilst constantly pacing along the street and looking into one of the
Supreme Court Bill of Rights Case Terry v. Ohio introduce the Terry frisk into police procedure, allowing officers to have the right to stop and frisk or do a surface search of individuals on the street even without probable cause. All the officer would need would be to have a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched had committed, was about to commit or was in the act of committing a
Terry v Ohio (Supreme Court, 1968) -- Found that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure is not violated when an officer of the law stops a suspect on the street and frisks them with probably cause to arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is about to commit a crime, or is in the process of committing a crime. Subsequent