The case of Terry V. Ohio is a landmark United State Supreme Court case that was decided in 1968 (“Terry v. Ohio”, n.d.). The plaintiff in this case was a man named John Terry and the state of Ohio was the Respondent. This decision from case influenced law enforcement's ability to detain citizens in order to question them about a possible crime. Because of this decision, the men and women of law enforcement are able to briefly detain citizens in order to further developing investigating information
In 1963, police officer Martin McFadden witnessed 3 men acting unusually. The men were named John Terry (petitioner), Richard Chilton, and Carl Katz. Terry and Chilton were alternating walking back and forth on an identical route, both stopping to look in the same store window. This happened 24 times. At each completion of the routine, they met at a corner to talk. At one of the meetings, another man (Katz) joined them briefly. When the officer followed the men, he saw them meet up with Katz once
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 frame inside Terry 's overcoat, ordered the men into the store. Terry and Chilton were charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and were each sentenced to three-years in prison. The arrest of Terry set in motion a series of lower court cases that ultimately led to the landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the Fourth
Terry vs. Ohio 392 U.S. (1968) Name Instructor Course Title Date Submitted Terry vs. Ohio: Case Summary: Following his usual patrol on a downbeat for several years, a Cleveland detective saw two strangers i.e. the petitioner and Mr. Chilton on a street corner. The two were observed proceeding alternately back and forth along a similar path in which they stared at the same window store for approximately twenty-four times. After completing the route, these individuals met at a corner where they
policy itself”, responded Bill Bratton in an interview with Here & Now. Stop and frisk has become an infamous practice amongst some people in the United States. People tend to misconstrue the real purpose of stop and frisk due to the behavior of certain officers in the police department. There is truth to the misconduct on the part of police officers, but this does not mean that the action of stop and frisk is unconstitutional. Stop and frisk is about the study of different factors in a particular instance
Kristen Fortin Kaplan University CJ:140 Introduction to Constitutional Law Professor Robert Winters February 22, 2014 Abstract: Pertaining to the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion within law enforcement can determine the difference between a legal search and seizure and police officers obtaining evidence in an illegal manner. Officers need to handle each situation when probable cause and reasonable suspicion is involved. Determining
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution applies to a person and their home by providing protection against unreasonable seizures and searches. While it provides protection, not every search and seizure can be deemed unreasonable unless it is classified as per the law, by determining whether there was: a) the level of intrusion of the individuals Fourth Amendment, and b) whether or not it pertains to the government’s interest, such as safety of the public. The right to protection
Presidents Reagan, the Bushes’ and Bill Clinton government, imposed racial projects and racial profiling cast new forms of racialized social control on black’s communities reminiscent of the days of slavery of the 1700’s and 1865s Jim Crow laws. The only difference in the 20th century is there are no lynch mobs. However, a new form of
experiences and education with the current situation, the caterpillar and butterfly are no longer in opposition and the institutional cycle is broken. The caterpillar now realizes that he can become the butterfly regardless of what conditions he is exposed to. In the 90’s the major rap revolutionary who tried to enlighten his audience was Tupac. NWA also wrote a powerful ode to the LAPD, after getting fed up from the mistreatment and racial profiling in their community, “f**k the police”. This
its nature is repugnant to the intentions of the Constitution, written for the purpose of sustaining a peaceful society without government control over the content of public discourse. UNPROTECTED SPEECH Unprotected speech is distinguished between the speaker’s message, and the conduct associated with communicating it (Kanovitz, 2010). Accordingly, several kinds of unprotected speech are discussed here, including obscenity and child pornography, fighting words, and incitement of a riot. (Kanovitz