Case Analysis : Petitioner Dennys Rodriguez

On October 31, 1963 a Cleveland Police Detective stopped and arrested three men outside a department store window. The officer charged two of the men with carrying concealed weapons. One of the men involved in this stop and frisk, John W. Terry, challenged the ruling, stating that it was against his 4th Amendment rights to be searched for weapons by an off duty police officer without probable cause for arrest. On June 10, 1968 the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of the policeman stating he had more than enough reason to stop these men and conduct a search. This case has been used as a guideline in many other rulings since 1968 that involve what may or may not be an “unreasonable search and seizure” under the 4th Amendment.

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. The Court found that the officer acted on more than an “hunch” and that “a reasonably prudent

At final, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that all claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force whether deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop or any other seizure of a citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard, rather than the under a substantive due process. The court also stated that a seizure occurs when a law enforcment officer terminates a free citizen’s movement by a means interntionally applied. An officer may sieze a person in many ways including: traffic stops, investigative detentions, and arrests are all seizures under the 4th amendmet. To seize a person, an officer may yell, “stop”, handcuff, a baton, or a firearm can be used to comply the subject with officer orders.

Case Facts: Roy Caballes was stopped for speeding by an Illinois state trooper Daniel Gillette. During the traffic stop another state trooper Craig Graham of the Illinois State Police Drug Interdiction Team, overheard the stop on the radio and showed up to the scene with a narcotics detection dog. While the first trooper was writing Roy Caballes a warning ticket for speeding the second trooper walked around Roy’s car with the narcotics detection dog. The dog alerted that it had detected narcotics at the rear end of the car which subsequently led to the state troopers searching the trunk of the car. Upon searching the trunk of the car the state troopers found a large quantity of marijuana which consequently led to the arrest of Roy Caballes. The entire incident lasted no longer than 10 minutes. Roy Caballes was convicted of a narcotics offence and was sentenced to 12 years in prison and ordered to pay a $256,136 fine.

“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

Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment require that police officers, when arresting someone who was an occupant in a vehicle, show either a threat to officer safety or a need to protect evidence related to the crime they are being arrested for make it legal for an officer to conduct a search of that vehicle without a search warrant?

Michael Brown in Ferguson, Eric Garner in Staten Island, Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Walter Scott in North Charleston and, most recently, Freddie Gray in Baltimore have dominated the headlines this entire school year. These men and their stories provide the basis for claims of racially discriminatory treatment of African Americans at the hands of the police. It is true that each of the stories surrounding these men is different, but the one unifying theme is that police around the country are interpreting our Constitutional rights in a way that is insufficient to protect African Americans and the population in general. This paper will explore one Constitutional right— the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizures--and examine how one Supreme Court decision that narrowed the scope of the 4th Amendment and unintentionally created a mechanism by which the rights of citizens could be unfairly impeded by police.

The consequences presented in Terry vs. Ohio were put forth but examination of the “reasonable balancing test.” By doing so, a balancing test that has a wider variety of causes is now in effect. In this landmark case, it was held that policemen are permitted to perform a “stop and frisk” pat down, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is presently dangerous and carrying a deadly weapon. This “stop and frisk” method was later extended to vehicle arrests as well.

We Americans are very fortunate that we have one of the top ten amendments that grant us the right to our privacy not being violated. The Fourth Amendment search and seizure clause focuses primarily on privacy; and this is enforced to ensure that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also does not matter what level of law enforcement jurisdiction an officer is apart of, whether it be State or Federal they are not allowed to violate this right. This particular amendment has been ameliorated many times, and that is to meet the needs of the American people. This paper shall discuss the following: the history and purpose of the Fourth Amendment, an explanation of whether or not the United States requires police to

Respondent was halted by Border Patrol Agent Stoddard while driving on an unpaved street in a remote territory of southeastern Arizona. A puqrsuit of his vehicle uncovered more than 100 pounds of pot, and he was accused of ownership with purpose to appropriate. The Federal District Court denied respondent's movement to smother, refering to various certainties that gave Stoddard sensible suspicion to stop the vehicle. The Ninth Circuit turned around. In its perspective, truth particular weighing of circumstances or other multifaceted tests brought instability and capriciousness into the Fourth Amendment examination, making it important to plainly delimit the elements that an officer may consider in making stops, for example, this one. It then held that few elements depended upon by the District Court conveyed almost no weight in the sensible suspicion math and that the remaining variables were insufficient to render the stop allowable.

Stop and Frisk laws have been a statistically proven means of crime prevention across America as a whole. Still, ever since their creation, Stop and Frisk laws have been a major source of controversy in America. The constitutionality of Stop and Frisk laws was confirmed in the 1968 case of Terry vs Ohio and since then, crime levels across America have been at historic lows. Yet, the 2013 verdict of the class action lawsuit, Floyd v. City of New York has ruled otherwise. The court found the NYPD of violating both the fourth and fourteenth amendment mostly on the grounds of racial profiling. The court has as a result put in place a serious of complex changes to these laws making the job as a police officer even more dangerous than it already was. The topic of “racial profiling” is the fuel to the majority of the arguments opposing Stop and frisk. However, the subject of racial profiling is vastly misconstrued and deeply misunderstood. Stop and Frisk laws have flaws and are not perfect by any means, nevertheless they are an imperative source of preventing crime in America that needs to continue.

Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.

On October 31st, 1963, an incident took place involving Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden and community members John W. Terry and Richard Chilton which resulted in the historical 1968 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Terry v. Ohio. The decision ruled that an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when stopped or searched by a police officer, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed or is committing a crime and has reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and dangerous.

Is the warrantless search and seizure of Elliot Watson, who was arrested for possession of Marijuana with the intent to distribute, after being detained by Officer Johnson who was on the lookout for a vehicle and kidnapper with the same vehicle and clothing description as Mr. Watsons’ sports coupe car and 5 foot 9 inches tall, brown hair, and brown eyes wearing a white tee-shirt and blue jeans, legal?

As a result, a Terry stop may be challenged as unlawful when as suspect is treated as if he or she is being subjected to probable cause arrest rather than to a reasonable suspicion stop. The Fourth Amendment gives that "the privilege of the general population to be secure in their people, houses, papers, and impacts, against irrational pursuits and seizures, should not be disregarded. This boundless right of 9*9 individual security has a place as much with the native in the city of our urban areas with regards to the property holder closeted in his examination to discard his mystery issues (Terry vs. Ohio). There are three main focuses when dealing with Terry stop: movement, length of detention, and intrusiveness. Terry stop is also a good and bad way to decrease the crime, but it’s mostly just the approach and how aggressive officers, detectives, and sheriffs are when drawing closer to the citizen to