Preview

Terry vs Ohio

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
986 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Terry vs Ohio
Terry vs. Ohio
Introduction to Criminal Justice
By Leann Rathbone
9/12/06

Terry vs. Ohio is a landmark case that was brought to the Supreme Court. It started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, when a police officer named Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a store front window. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look into the store window when he reached the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store front window. Upon reaching the other man, the two talked. The other man then made the same trip down the street, pausing to look in the same store front window. A third man then joined the other two men at the corner. They talked and then the third man left. The two men then returned to the ritual of walking up and down the street. McFadden then followed the two men, and watched as they met up with the third man in front of the store. At this point, Officer McFadden walked up to the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked for their names. He asked the first man, Terry, to turn around. He frisked him, and, feeling a pistol inside Terry's overcoat, he ordered the three men into the store. Terry and the second man Chilton was charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and were each sentenced to a three-year term in prison. During the trial the defense moved to suppress the weapons, stating that you must have the probable cause that is required to place a person under arrest. The defense attorney goes on to ague that Officer McFadden did do the "smart" thing, but not a "Constitutional" thing. A "stop and frisk" is no less invasive than a warranted search, the court found that there interrogation was warranted and that the police officer had a right for his own protection to pat them down. By doing this the court distinguished between an "Investigatory Stop" and an arrest. The court also distinguished the difference between a "Frisk" of outer clothing

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In Minnesota vs. Timothy Dickerson, two police officers parked in an unmarked car, outside of an apartment building known for trafficking contraband substances, did willfully and knowingly stop and frisk respondent due to suspicious and evasive behavior, exiting the twelve-unit apartment building. The officers felt that upon his exit and approach towards patrol car, and eye contact with one of the officers, he turned and proceeded into a side alley. Officers then pursued respondent feeling his suspicious and evasive behavior was probable of being criminal in nature. They pulled their car into the alley and immediately stopped and searched the defendants outer clothing finding no weapons. During the cursory search one officer testified that he had felt a cellophane bag containing crack cocaine later when weighed a total of 1/5th of a gram was found. The officers claimed it within their scope to search and seize what the officer suspected to be drugs inside the defendants clothing.…

    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In 2002, Lemon Montrea Johnson was the passenger in the backseat of a car stopped for a traffic violation. Johnson was charged with; inter alia, possession of drugs and possession of a weapon by a felon. These items were discovered during a protective pat-down search of Johnson. Johnson was convicted by the trial court. Johnson argued that his conviction should be overturned because the trial court was in error by denying his motion to suppress the evidence. He argued that he had been unlawfully “seized” because being a passenger in a vehicle does not automatically constitute “seizure.” He furthered argued that even if he had been “seized,” that by the time Officer Trevizo searched him he was no longer “seized” as their conversation had become consensual. Furthermore, the evidence should not be considered because the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights and because the…

    • 4995 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Essay Arizona vs. Grant

    • 356 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The case Arizona vs. Grant occured because an event that happened on August 25, 1999 involving two police officers, and a suspect who was believed to be involved in narcotics activity. The officers first visit to the house where the suspect lived was followed by a second visit later that night because he wasnt there at the initial visit. After their first visit they ran a background check and found causes for the arrest of the subject, Rodney Grant. Upon the second return the subject Rodney Grant was apprehended after pulling into his driveway and walking about ten feet towards the officers. After they placed him in the police vehicle, they searched the suspects car, which was the cause of the Arizona vs Grant case, because of a debate on evidence pulled from the car without reasonable reasons to search it. Although there was cocaine and a weapons in the car, the officers didnt have reasons to prove why the searched it after the suspect had already been apprehended and put into the police vehicle. It is because of this that led to questioning of why the car was searched because Grant was not in the nearby vicinity of the vehicle and therefore no harm to the officers unless he had a weapons in his immediate possession.…

    • 356 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Terry Vs Ohio Case Study

    • 2441 Words
    • 10 Pages

    The first sentence of Chief Justice Warren's opinion in Terry v Ohio, is as follows: "This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances.” According to Chief Justice Warren this issue had never been approached in the Supreme Court. Warren also stated “This case is dealing on the one hand with is frequently argued that in dealing with the rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets the police are in need of an escalating set of flexible responses, graduated in relation to the amount of information they possess. For this purpose it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop" and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a "frisk" and a "search." He believed this could be imposed because it was a minor inconvenience to the person being searched and was acceptable in order for effective law enforcement and secure the safety of the…

    • 2441 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Terry V. Ohio Case Study

    • 437 Words
    • 2 Pages

    John Terry, one of the men arrested, claimed that Officer McFadden lacked evidence and probable cause to perform the frisk. To engage in this action, Officer McFadden would need hard evidence that showed that the men were on the verge of committing a crime. John Terry claimed that the search was illegal because it invaded his right to privacy.…

    • 437 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    BRANDENBURG brief

    • 331 Words
    • 1 Page

    The appellant was convicted by the Ohio criminal syndicalism for statue Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2923.13. The appellant challenged the constitutionalism of his conviction in intermediate appellate court of Ohio, but the affirmed his conviction. The supreme court of Ohio dismissed his appeal.…

    • 331 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The case had changed the precedent that was set in the Terry v. Ohio case.…

    • 872 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    CJ 101 4th Amendment

    • 476 Words
    • 2 Pages

    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…

    • 476 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Stop And Frisk Case Study

    • 2011 Words
    • 9 Pages

    In 1972, The Supreme Court heard the case of Terry vs. Ohio. Terry vs. Ohio is a well-known case involving stop-and-frisk. In the summer of 1968, Officer Martin McFadden noticed two men acting suspiciously, on a street in front of several stores. Officer McFadden had noticed the men walking back and forth on the same street and each…

    • 2011 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    “Stop and Frisk” is a program put into effect by the New York Police Department that basically grants an officer authority to stop and search a “suspicious character” if they deem him/her to be as such. They don’t need a warrant, or see you commit a crime. 5They simply need to deem you “suspicious” to violate your 4th amendment rights without repercussions. Since its inception, New York City’s stop and frisk program has drawn much controversy stemming from the disproportionate rate of arrest. While the argument that the program violates an individual’s 4th amendment right of protection from unreasonable search and seizure could absolutely be made, that argument pales in comparison to the argument of discrimination. A disproportionate number of African Americans and Hispanics are unreasonably stopped and searched simply for looking suspicious. The original intention of this program was to reduce the level of crime (which it has) and to crack down on illegal weapons. It has now become an excuse for police to play with their authority and target innocent people.…

    • 1516 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Consensual Encounter

    • 207 Words
    • 1 Page

    In 1968, supreme court stated that in the case of Terry v. Ohio, a police officer can stop an individual for questioning if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is about to commit, is committing or is going to commit a crime. In addition, supreme court stated that officers can search for weapons for the protection of the officer if he feels threatened.…

    • 207 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Stop and Frisk

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The Supreme Court rejected the defendants' arguments. The Court noted that stops and frisks are considerably less intrusive than full-blown arrests and searches. It also observed that the interests in crime prevention and in police safety require that the police have some leeway to act before full probable cause has developed. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is sufficiently flexible to permit an officer to investigate the situation. The "sole justification" for a frisk, said the Court, is the "protection of the police officer and others nearby." Because of this narrow scope, a frisk must be "reasonably designed to discover guns,…

    • 1557 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    stop and frisk

    • 756 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Under the U.S constitution, the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures such as “Stop and Frisk”. The “Stop and Frisk” law allows police officers to stop someone if they have reasonable evidence, but tribunes are abusing that power by stopping individuals based off seeing furtive movements and not on actual evidence which is unconstitutional. In his article “Why Stop and Frisk Matters, Even if You Don’t Live in New York” Andrew Cohen States “One example of poor training is particularly telling. Two officers testified to their understanding of the term ‘furtive movements’. One explained that ‘furtive movements’ is a very broad concept, and could include a person ‘changing direction’…”. This is a shoddy reason to stop an individual based off furtive movements because it is important for police to muster evidence that proves an individual is guilty. In her article “Growing up with Stop and Frisk” Sara Maria Glanowski states “Earlier this week, a federal judge ruled…

    • 756 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    alpine village case study

    • 889 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Alpine Village Clinic is a small walk-in clinic located next to the primary ski area of Alpine Village, a winter resort close to Aspen, Colorado. The clinic specializes in treating injuries sustained while skiing. It is owned and operated by two physicians: James Peterson, an orthopedist, and Amanda Cook, an internist (Gapenski and Pink, 2009). The clinic has an outside accountant who takes care of payroll matters, but Dr. Cook does all the other financial work for the clinic. However, to help in that task, the clinic recently hired a part-time MBA student, Doug Washington.…

    • 889 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Stop and Frisk

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Current law allows police officers to conduct stop and frisk searches of persons based on reasonable suspicion, as determined by Terry v. Ohio where supreme court decisions determined that individuals can be searched not only for probable cause (where an individual is under suspicion of committing a specific crime) but also for reasonable suspicion (where an individual is thought to be taking part in of have taken part of a crime, using facts and beliefs at hand which a reasonable inferences can be drawn from). In these instances, a pat down can be done only for the search of weapons for the preservation of the officers’ safety. The officer can not manipulate objects not believed to be weapons in order to determine if they are other illegal substances (Minnesota v. Dickerson). Additionally the police need to notice something in you actions that makes you suspicious (Rogers v. Arizona). The police can not stop a person because of protected status such as race, gender etc. When police are conducting an investigation, you have to cooperate with them or you might be arrested as well (Hiibu v. Nevada).…

    • 514 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays