Verified Document

Terry V. Ohio No Right Term Paper

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).

The Court, in looking at this case, focused strongly on the particular facts of this one case, as if it was an exception, noting that the officer had acted on more than a "hunch" and that anyone observing the suspicious actions of these...

The officer also believed that the men were armed, and therefore were a threat to his and the public safety. Upon finding concealed weapons, the officer then arrested the three men. The Court found that the search for the concealed weapons was limited in scope and was designed to protect himself and the public safety (Oyez, 2007).
In an era where the "Warren Court" challenged traditional limitations, this case upheld them because it was such a clear-cut case of intent to commit a crime that prompted the subsequent frisking of the suspects. Their rights were not violated, the Court found, because they had displayed intent and what the officer acted upon was more than a "hunch," leading to what was considered a "reasonable" act on the part of the officer.

References

Terry v. State of Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968. Retrieved July 10, 2007 at http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/terry%20v%20ohio.html.

Oyez Project, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). (2007). Retrieved July 10, 2007 at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_67/.

Sources used in this document:
References

Terry v. State of Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968. Retrieved July 10, 2007 at http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/terry%20v%20ohio.html.

Oyez Project, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). (2007). Retrieved July 10, 2007 at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_67/.
Cite this Document:
Copy Bibliography Citation

Related Documents

Terry Vs. Ohio: Police Officer
Words: 1773 Length: 5 Document Type: Term Paper

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 V Ohio Supreme Court, 1968 --
Words: 820 Length: 3 Document Type: Essay

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

Terry V Ohio Court Case
Words: 1124 Length: 3 Document Type: Essay

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

Exclusionary Rule in Terry Vs Ohio
Words: 1023 Length: 3 Document Type: Essay

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

Social Problems That Exist Because of Crime
Words: 1887 Length: 5 Document Type: Research Paper

Stop and Frisk as it Relates to Race and Social Class Despite living in the Land of the Free, some Americans on the public streets are still being singled out by law enforcement authorities for questioning and searches based on race and social class. In what is termed a "stop and frisk," police have detained and searched ordinary citizens for no other crime than being a minority or poor. In mid-1968,

Landmark 4th and 5th Amendment
Words: 1329 Length: 4 Document Type: Essay

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,

Sign Up for Unlimited Study Help

Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.

Get Started Now