Terry v. Ohio was a court decision made in 1968 that still affects how police conduct their operations to this day. This case gave special liberties to police officers which would otherwise be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states " the right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ house‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizure‚ shall not be violated‚ and no Warrants shall issue‚ but upon probable cause‚ supported by Oath or affirmation‚ and
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
illustrated when comparing population growth numbers by the increase in people actually stopped and those arrested. 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
Premium Terry v. Ohio Crime Criminal law
impaired in any way in order to pull them over. So yes Officer Smith did have reasonable suspicion to pull the car over in the first place. 1. Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? “Stop and frisk” was discussed in the case of Terry v Ohio from 1968. In the case an experienced plain clothes officer observed 3 men acting suspiciously in front of a store. The officer concluded that they were casing the store‚ preparing to rob it so he approached them. He identified himself as
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio Searches and seizures
based on careless movements and the lack of proper self composure‚ seems to be justice to me. . (Gaines‚ 2012)"The precedent for the ever-elusive definition of a "reasonable" suspicion in stop-and-frisk situations was established in Terry v. Ohio (1968)" An Ohio detective by the name of McFadden‚ an older detective which held experience in the area‚ noticed two certain individuals acting peculiarly in the downtown beat. Actions such as passing by a store‚ peering into windows‚ and then repositioning
Premium Police Terry v. Ohio Crime
have been used in a crime resulting in the death of a police officer. This gave Officer Smith reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime there may have been some criminal activity involving the vehicle‚ the driver or both. The 1968 case was Terry v. Ohio (392 U.S. 1) deemed that an officer may pat down a person for weapons only if the officer has the additional reasonable suspicion that the pat down is necessary for safety reasons. Since a vehicle similar to the vehicle that Officer Smith had stopped
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio Criminal law
Stop and Frisk page2 Abstract This paper was written to take a look at both sides of the stop and frisk program. By examining both sides I hope to show the effectiveness of the program‚ but not to leave out the possible negative effects also. There is no doubt that this program has gain a lot of negative attention‚ the main controversial issue at hand is that the people feel that it gives the cops to much authority to stop anyone they can. This program is to believe that it is a way to
Premium Crime Police Terry v. Ohio
to search. Once a stop has been made on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity‚ if law enforcement feels that their life is in danger a frisk may be made on reasonable suspicion that the suspect could possibly be armed and dangerous. In Terry v. Ohio the Supreme Court evened the government note in crime prevention and concentrated on the peoples’ safety against invasion of privacy. The Fourth Amendment is produced on reasonable suspicion needs to be more than a feeling. It has to be built on
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
discriminate directly or indirectly at a specific race. Members of minority groups are more likely to be stopped and frisked than any other race in New York City. (source?) The stop and frisk policy was implemented after the Supreme Court case of Terry vs. Ohio‚ which ruled that an officer can perform a search on a person without a warrant‚ if the officer suspects that the person may be armed or dangerous. (source?) This case paved the way to one of the most controversial police procedures in New York-stop
Premium Terry v. Ohio New York City Search and seizure
Unit 2 Assignment CJ 227-01: Criminal Procedure “One may well ask: How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others? The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but‚ a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely‚ one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King‚ Jr. Imagine a perfect society‚ where the population had a standard
Premium Searches and seizures Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
Stop and Frisk Introduction Police Officers work for many hours and most of those hours are stopping people on the street to see what they carry. Stop and frisk is “One of the most controversial police procedures is the stop and frisk search. This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person‚” (Farlex‚ 2008‚ pg. 1). How stop and frisk became
Premium Police Search and seizure Terry v. Ohio