Decision-making processes and personal choice

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 joint with the intention of robbing the place in the daylight hours. This opinion was based on his observation and years of experience (Terry v. Ohio 2012). The suspects moved away from the initial area and were kept under surveillance by the detective. When the men joined a third person a few blocks away the officer identified himself as a police officer, requested the men's names and proceeded to pat down the outside of the men's clothing. The officer found a revolver in the petitioner's over coat and in the coat pocket of one of his accomplices. The men were later arrested and charged with the possession of a concealed weapon. What is crucial in this case is that at no time did the detective place his hands under the external clothing of the accomplices and he only placed his hand under the petitioner's outer clothing when he felt an object that he believed to be a weapon.

The case created a quite a stir and went to the state supreme court and later to the Supreme Court of the United States. The case therefore presents an important set of principles and precedents that govern law enforcement today. During the trial the defense motioned to have the evidence found on the men thrown out as the defense argued that the weapons were illegally discovered. The prosecution on the other hand argued that the evidence was discovered during a search of the defendants that was incidental to a lawful arrest. The court did not approve the motion to suppress and the weapons were therefore admissible into evidence. Of critical importance at this time was the distinction in the court of the difference between a "stop" and an arrest as well as a "frisk" and an actual search of the individual. The appeals court affirmed the lower court decision and the state supreme court dismissed the appeal stating that there was " no substantial constitutional question involved" (Terry v. Ohio 2012).

The matter however was heard by the Supreme Court and there were several important determinations made by the court which need to be briefly cited. Saltsburg (1998) notes that Chief Justice Warren assigned the case to himself because unlike the state supreme court he believed that there were substantial constitutional issues at stake here. In fact Justice Warren felt that the case presented serious questions relating to the role the "Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances" (Saltsburg 918). Consequently, a major concern was whether the "stop" and "frisk" was in violation of the rights of citizens to be protected from unlawful arrest and searches.

The Supreme Court determined that the Fourth Amendment applied to the "stop" and "frisk." Additionally, the careful examination of the outer clothing of an individual is a search of the person. The Supreme Court also determined that the behavior of the officer was within the boundaries of what a reasonable man would do and think in that situation. The Court reasoned that it was reasonable for an officer if he was acting to safeguard himself or others to conduct a search of an individual. This is once the search is based on evidence that amounts to what is required for a search warrant but it was not possible to acquire such a warrant.