Review of the Terry vs. Ohio Case

The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.

When and how officers use discretion is not always seen in a positive light by some members of the community; for example some officers feel that an assault between two blacks is an acceptable way for them to handle disputes, therefore there would be no need to invoke the criminal process (Goldstein, 1960). An officer’s negative appraisal of minorities is one of the reasons they are so over-represented in the criminal justice system. If officers are making the decision not to invoke the criminal process when dealing with white upper class males, but in most cases invoking the criminal process when dealing with members of the minority community, that is a violation of due process. In that case, the net affect of police discretion is negative.

A police officer’s abuse of power comes from the amounts of stop and frisks towards people of color and the actions taken for the arrest. A police officer will use pre-textual stops to justify stopping a black person. If an officer deems a black person to be suspicious based on appearance, then that black person has committed a crime. John Clemons, writer of a journal article, “Blind injustice: The

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

Gardner, 2016). It was in 1968 in Terry vs. Ohio where the court initially ruled it to be legal for the police to detain someone and question them based on reasonable suspicion. Therefore, it is police officers’ job to identify people who are involved in criminal activity or are going to be involved in any criminal activity. If they ever see someone that they feel is acting a little suspicious and they have enough basic facts to say that their behavior seemed a bit shady, they have the right to detain that persona and question them.

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

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “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” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

As crime rates rise, police must come up with new methods to counteract these increases. Many of these methods come with pros and cons that may affect the way the public views Police officers and law enforcement in general. Some of these methods may seem like a violation to people’s rights, even though they may be constitutional. One of these methods known as Stop and Frisk is one of the most widely debated topics in America when it comes to dealing with Police actions and Constitutional rights.

This assignment is meant to explore the landmark Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio. It is the purpose of the essay to examine the facts of the controversy, the arguments offered by the petitioner, and discuss as well the Supreme Court's ruling and its possible impact on precedent. The analysis will conclude with my commentary and opinion in regard to the Mapp decision.

The judicial system in America has always endured much skepticism as to whether or not there is racial profiling amongst arrests. The stop and frisk policy of the NYPD has caused much controversy and publicity since being applied because of the clear racial disparity in stops. Now the question remains; Are cops being racially biased when choosing whom to stop or are they just targeting “high crime” neighborhoods, thus choosing minorities by default? This paper will examine the history behind stop and frisk policies. Along with referenced facts about the Stop and Frisk Policy, this paper will include and discuss methods and findings of my own personal field research.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

A young man’s brutal death at the hands of the police is found justified in a court of law due to his “suspicious” appearance: a black hoodie and his hands in his pocket. An elderly woman is fatally shot in her home for her relation to a suspected criminal. A married man with two toddlers is choked to death after a minor traffic stop by an officer who later claimed that his unarmed victim was wielding a gun. These people all have a few commonalities: the color of their skin, their presumed guilt at first sight, and their ultimate unjustified death administered by the law force. These are not uncommon occurrences. Due to the staggeringly disproportionate rate of African-Americans killed by the police, and the underlying rampant racial profiling, police brutality towards blacks in America must be called to light.

On October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, Officer Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a storefront acting suspiciously. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look in a store window. At the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store window as on his way down. Upon reaching the other man, the two mingled and talked to each other. Officer McFadden witnessed these men do this several times. Officer McFadden concerned the men were “casing a job”, then followed the two men, and watched as they met up in front of Zucker’s 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 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 Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court decided the case of Terry v. Ohio on June 10, 1968. The question that arises in the Terry v. Ohio case has to do with the Fourth Amendment, specifically the line "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

Discrimination is a known concept that happens everywhere, yet police and prosecutors are blind to it. Their ways of preventing crime are discriminatory in every sense of the word and they categorize people based on their skin color and where they reside. The disproportionate minority contact with the stop and frisk method is one of the ways that discrimination can be seen. “Code of the Street” and “Law and Disorder in Philadelphia” help dissect why discrimination is not seen by police and their agencies and also how police officers and their administration go about ways of preventing crime. The pressure within the police, community, and courts create inequalities for the individuals going through the Criminal Justice System.