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 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 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…
References
Saltzburg, S.A. (1998). Terry V. Ohio: A Practically perfect doctrine. St. John's Law Review. 3
72: 911-976.
Terry v. Ohio (2012). Retrieved from http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-israel/arrest-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-2/
Terry v. Ohio (2012). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html
" (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
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
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