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.
¶ … 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 rulings using Terry allow for a vehicle to be constitutionally searched if there is reasonable suspicion and a 2004 ruling that certain state laws requiring suspects to identify themselves were indeed constitutional.
Siborn v New York (Supreme Court, 1968) -- 8 to 1 decision of the Warren Court stating that although states may grant officers of the law latitude in making arrests, all search and seizures must be subject to constitutional limitations. There must be verifiable probably cause -- not simply the thought process of an officer, or other non-verifiable means.
Peters v New York -- Heard in conjunction with a related case, Court said it was lawful to stop and frisk if officers observed suspicious behavior and a subsequent search reveled incriminating burglary tools.
Georgia v Randolf (Supreme Court, 2006) -- Court holds that police...
Scholars say this case is within the bounds of the battle between the originalists and living constitution philosophies of modern jurisprudence.
Arizona v Gant (Supreme Court, 2009) -- Court holds that the Fourth Amendment requires officers of the law to demonstrate and actual, reasonable and continuing threat to their personal safety or preserve the relevant evidence in order to justify the search of a vehicle without a warrant. This proof should be verifiable, preferably with witnesses or other tangible forms of evidence.
Oliver v United States (Supreme Court, 1984) -- Decision based on the open fields doctrine which limits the use of the Fourth Amendment. Essentially, this means that the protections under the Fourth Amendment do not hold for fields or growing areas around the home as if it were a home. Searches, therefore, can be made on open fields without violating the "knock and announce rule."
United State v Dunn (Supreme Court, 1987) -- Another open fields decision, limiting the use of the Fourth Amendment. In this case, the Court was asked to rule whether the area between the barn and the house was within the "curtilage" or protected area, of…
Kirby v Illinois (Supreme Court, 1972) -- Court holds that a suspect does not have Sixth Amendment rights prior to the beginnings of a criminal prosecution- those rights to counsel attach during an official criminal prosecution. A pre-indictment interview is not within the bounds of a formal criminal proceeding; but only an information gathering situation.
Manson v Brathwaite (Supreme Court, 1977) -- Court found that the lower courts should take the totality of circumstance in eyewitness testimony for criminal procedure. If eyewitness testimony is done by a trained law enforcement officer, then rights under the 14th Amendment are not violated.
Arizona v Gant -- The essential issue in Arizona v Gant is whether a law enforcement officer can conduct an automobile search based on suspicion only. If police stop a car on a speeding violation, they must have probably cause or some apparent knowledge to search the vehicle for another crime; for example, drugs. A warrantless search requires that law enforcement either feel in imminent danger, or have more than reasonable suspicion that something illegal has taken place (e.g. smell of marijuana, drug paraphernalia present, etc.) Further, this evidence must be factual, buttressed, and not opinion.
" (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
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
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
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"
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
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