CJ 101 4th Amendment
To understand the impact of Terry v. Ohio, I feel it is important to first review the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was established so citizens would not have to suffer unreasonable search and seizures like they did under British Rule. The Amendment states the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Second, I feel we must look at Terry v. Ohio. In a nut shell Terry v. Ohio was about an officer observing behavior consistent with someone casing a business to be robbed. After observing this behavior the officer made contact with the individuals and knowing that Terry’s behavior was consistent with casing a business to be robbed, and most robberies are violent crimes consisting of a suspect using a weapon the officer did a pat down for weapons. During this pat down the officer located a concealed pistol and placed the individual under arrest for this crime.
This effected law enforcement officers in several ways. First, when the Supreme Court ruled in Ohio’s favor it stated that if there is reasonable suspicion, i.e. behavior that indicates someone might be armed, such as casing a business. The officer has the right to detain, and do what has become known as a “terry pat down” of the outer layer of clothing to search for weapons. This does not give the officer the right to go into pockets unless he can articulate that what he felt from the outside was an item consistent with a known weapon. This benefits the officers by keeping the safer on the street. I can personally vouch that a person can hide a weapon just about anywhere, and you can’t always tell by looking at them if they are armed. Second, the court affirmed that you have to have reasonable suspicion; you
Second, I feel we must look at Terry v. Ohio. In a nut shell Terry v. Ohio was about an officer observing behavior consistent with someone casing a business to be robbed. After observing this behavior the officer made contact with the individuals and knowing that Terry’s behavior was consistent with casing a business to be robbed, and most robberies are violent crimes consisting of a suspect using a weapon the officer did a pat down for weapons. During this pat down the officer located a concealed pistol and placed the individual under arrest for this crime.
This effected law enforcement officers in several ways. First, when the Supreme Court ruled in Ohio’s favor it stated that if there is reasonable suspicion, i.e. behavior that indicates someone might be armed, such as casing a business. The officer has the right to detain, and do what has become known as a “terry pat down” of the outer layer of clothing to search for weapons. This does not give the officer the right to go into pockets unless he can articulate that what he felt from the outside was an item consistent with a known weapon. This benefits the officers by keeping the safer on the street. I can personally vouch that a person can hide a weapon just about anywhere, and you can’t always tell by looking at them if they are armed. Second, the court affirmed that you have to have reasonable suspicion; you