Assignment 2: Terry Vs. Ohio Case

Lakisha Frasier
Leg 420
Assignment 2: Terry V. Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. ED. 2d 889, 1968 U.S.
March 1, 2015

I will be summarizing the aspects of Terry v Ohio case, discussing whether or not the men’s right to privacy was violated as well as the officer’s action described and the courts holding that provides the totality of the circumstances.
John W. Terry (the “Petitioner”), was stopped and searched after seemingly casing a store for robbery. Terry was approached by the officer who decided to search him verses questioning. Synopsis of rule of law says that an officer may search for weapons without a warrant, without probable cause, especially if the individual is believed to be armed and dangerous. From the officers observation he believed that they were casing the store for a potential robbery, due to the nature of the situation the officer decided to quick search before questioning which led to a concealed weapon being found.
The issue here is whether a search for weapons without probable cause for an arrest is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States. Through the trial the court rejected the prosecution theory that he gun was seized during a lawful
arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence based on the grounds that the officer had cause to believe they might be armed.
Supreme Court upheld the conviction that when an officer has "reasonable grounds" for suspecting that a suspect may be armed, he may pat down the outer layer of the suspect 's clothing for weapons. The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a pat down is performed based on reasonable suspicion for the purpose of ensuring officer safety.
The court distinguished between an investigatory “stop” and an arrest and “frisk’. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that no substantial constitutional question was involved. The issue in this case is not the propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure.
Police officers today have been permitted to arrests or searches without warrants only when the facts with their personal knowledge would satisfy the constitutional standard of probable cause. I can say that the officer’s actions was justifiable to the circumstances surrounding the fact that the individuals were pacing back in forth around the store and seemed like they were together which gave the officer or probable cause or suspicion which led to the men being searched and two guns being found. I do not believe the Petitioner should be charged with anything relating to a robbery because there is not enough evidence that a crime was committed or about to be committed.
The Terry V. Ohio case represents a clash between the Fourth Amendment protection from intrusive, harassing conduct by police when no crime has been committed and the officer duty is to investigate suspicious behavior and prevent crime. This conviction allows officers to interrogate and frisk individuals without probable cause for arrest.
Unreasonable searches and seizures condemned in the Fourth Amendment are always made for the purpose of compelling a man to give evidence against himself, which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment and compelling a man in a criminal case to be a witness against himself which is condemned in the Fifth Amendment, which asks the question to what is an unreasonable search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment.
The exclusionary rule has its limitations, the meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes like prevention of crime or personal protection. I do not believe that the men rights was violated but I do not believe it was enough probable cause or evidence because no crime was yet committed.
Mr. Douglas dissenting opinion was based in agreement that the Petitioner was seized with the Fourth Amendment, but does not understand how search and seizure can be constitutional by the Fourth Amendment standards unless there was probable cause to believe that a crime was committed or about to be committed.
Justice Douglas disagreed with permitting a stop and search absent probable cause and said that "We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure ' and conduct a 'search ' than a judge has to authorize such action.
We have said precisely the opposite over and over again and "to give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path, this step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness but if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment." If loitering was the issue and the charge, there would be enough probable cause, but the charge is carrying a concealed weapon which hold no basis for probable cause if a crime was not
committed.
The Supreme Court has to determine, for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, when is a person "seized" and what constitutes a "search". The Court rejected the idea that a "stop and frisk" could categorically never be a search or seizure subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment. It made room that some police action based on a traditional arrest could constitute a seizure that "whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has 'seized ' that person. When Terry was patted down the detective "seized" Terry and subjected him to a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, but the Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable searches and seizures.

References www.uscourts.gov www.knowmyrights.org
www.laws.findlaw.com