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 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 shops there, from time to time. They were subsequently approached by a third individual who conversed with them before leading them along the street. From the looks of it, the official surmised that the three men might be up to no good, and potentially planning a shop burglary. Hence, he decided upon grilling them, and considering their suspicious conduct, also decided upon swiftly frisking all three prior to interrogation (Samaha, 2012). The search generated a concealed gun, with the end result being a suit against the complainant for having, on his person, a hidden weapon. The officer claimed all he did was pat the three men down for weapons, and certainly didn't search beneath their outer clothing.
Prior Proceedings
None
Issue
The basic issue in this case is whether or not weapon frisking...
They asserted that the official (i.e., Mcfadden) lacked both a probable cause for detention and a search warrant. However, their motion was denied.
Holdings
The Supreme Court held that, in spite of a lack of probable cause for apprehension, the complainant's frisking, which gleaned a concealed gun, satisfied Amendment IV conditions. Drawing from experience, Mcfadden had a logical and legitimate suspicion regarding Terry and team's nefarious plans, and believed the complainant threatened society; this justifies the official's decision of stopping and patting down the men and consequently makes the evidence generated "admissible" at trial (Samaha, 2012). The court essentially maintained that, in the event law enforcement officials notice behavior which gives rise to suspicions regarding potential crime, and abide by the correct procedure, they are entitled to safeguard both themselves and the public…
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"
" (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 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
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
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