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 captured can be presented as a proof against Terry. The Court found that the officer performed based on his intuition and that a sensibly cautious man would have been reasonable in thinking that Terry was having weapons and thus pose a risk to the officer's safety while he was searching. The Court found out that the investigation done was in a restricted level and was intended to safe guard the officer's security during the search. (Terry v. Ohio: (www.oyez.org)

Accessed on 1 March 2005
Legal guide for officers and supervisors" Retrieved at http://www.llrmi.com/Articles/ct-questioning.cfmAccessed on 1 March 2005

Review of the Terry vs Ohio case" Retrieved at http://mo.essortment.com/terryohiostop_rorf.htm. Accessed on 1 March 2005

Terry v. Ohio" Retrieved at http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/378/. Accessed on 1 March 2005

The Exclusionary Rule" Retrieved at http://www.guilford.edu/pages/modules/10000/depts/jps/exclusionaryRule.html. Accessed on 1 March 2005

U.S. Supreme Court -TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 392 U.S. 1" Retrieved at http://www.roadblock.org/federal/caseUSterry.htm. Accessed on 1 March 2005