Summary Of Terry V. Ohio

I could be driving minding my own business and a drive by a police officer just parked somewhere and police officer spots me and pulls me over for some reason. The police officer orders me out of my vehicle. Maybe I was speeding and I did not know? Or maybe the police officer wants to search me and my car? Can the officer do that? The answer to all these questions are no, Thanks to the Fourth Amendment, The police officer has limited power to seize and search me or my car (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr). Now, the Fourth Amendment has been questioned repeatedly during the last several years, as police and higher intelligent agencies in the United States have engaged in a number of controversial activities. From the federal government collecting telephones and Internet connections to protect us, due to the War on Terror and trying to prevent the same damage that happened on 9/11. Many municipal police forces have engaged in violent use of “stop and frisk.” There have been as far as incidents were police officers were force to shoot civilians (Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr).

The Supreme Court made it clear with its ruling that, police do have the authority to stop or detain an individual for a questioning for a short-term period without probable cause if he/she make have or about to commit a crime. This ruling is important because it gives police officer the authority to help protect him/herself as well as the community. It also puts steps in place to protect citizens from unreasonable search and seizure that is protected our Fourth Amendment right. In the case of Terry v. Ohio a police detective observed two men walking up and down a street several times and gazing into a store window. The officer observing conduct from the individuals that would lead him or her to suspect that a crime has already happened or about to happen is one of the necessities need to consider this as a valid stop. The officer identified himself as an officer of the law and began to inquire and request identification. The officer in this case followed the required guidelines for a valid stop. In return the Supreme Court ruled that this was a valid stop and frisk. According to United States Supreme Court TERRY v. OHIO, (1968) MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring. While I unreservedly agree with the Court 's ultimate holding in this case, I am constrained to fill in a few gaps, as I see them, in its opinion. I do this because what is said by this Court today

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

1 Civil Rights Vs. Civil Liberties As a citizen of the United States, one is granted many protections under law. 2 These protections consist of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Varying based on the person, these rights are very valuable and ensure that an individual free of harm for certain situations. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties have evolved over the years as our country continues to further its development. They allow for the diminishing of injustice and a sense of security when it comes to the law system. The importance of Civil Rights and Liberties may not be very well known to all, but continue to play a role in every citizen’s

The Constitution is one of the most important document of the United States of America along with the Declaration of Independence. In the Constitution, the founding fathers and the government also included a set of "rights" entitled, The Bill of Rights. In The Bill of Rights, citizens of the U.S. are given rights, amendments, that make the U.S a "free" country today. This system has provided many citizens with rights such as, allowing them to express their religion and free speech and protect their privacy with no officials is allowed to search someone 's belongings unless there is a warrant that states reason. There are many more amendments besides the two listed and each of them are of equal importance to balance the power between the

The United States Constitution was recognized to Americans as a vague statement in clarifying the privileges and the rights of individuals and centralizing the power within the government itself. With the passing of the Bill of Rights and the first ten amendments, it grants the people to what is said to be their “natural rights” following additional rights that have significantly changed our society.

After outlining that, the document begins to outline the basic civil liberties and rights that the average citizen receives. These are called the amendments. They are the foundation on what the freedom of America is built with. The amendments spell out the freedoms that Americans had, everything from the right of religious freedoms to the right to bear arms both of which are regularly debated subjects today. They made America what America was, the freest country in the world

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

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

The Bill of Rights is supposed to to guarantee American citizens certain personal freedoms and is supposed to protect citizens from police, military, and the judicial branches. The first amendment, arguably the most important amendment in regards to personal freedom, grants all U.S. citizens the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and

In the case Terry v. Ohio, the defendant John Terry argued that his Fourth Amendment right was violated when a police officer conducted a search on him, and found a concealed weapon. According to the officer, he had been monitoring Terry’s actions prior to the stop in fear of his safety, thus, had enough reasonable suspicion to stop and search the defendant. The Supreme Court decided to rule in favor of the state determining that the officer may stop and frisk any suspicious person when he feels that his safety or those of others are in danger. A Terry Stop is when the police are allowed to stop, question and frisk someone they believe is behaving suspiciously (Larson, 2000). I am going to argue how police officers benefit from the Terry Stops even though on many occasions they take advantage of their power and act unethical. Essentially, it is acceptable for police officers to stop and frisk any suspicious person because it enhances the community. Furthermore, from the law enforcement perspective, any officer of the law should have a mandatory right to stop and search for weapons in order to protect themselves at all times. It is obvious that society feels that they cannot trust law enforcement because minorities are more likely to be stopped and frisk. Needless to say, it can be argued that we are one step closer to chaos. I would consider that the Supreme Court clarify and specify a little more on the stop and frisk law because ambiguity. In my opinion, anytime an

Mapp V. Ohio case decision affects society by protection against unreasonable search and seizures. The reason why Mapp was protected by the fourth amendment is because a case had already been tried and decided before in 1914. The case for Mapp’s just solidified that people are indeed protected by the fourth amendment. State authorities cannot enter your home without a warrant and cannot gather anything as evidence and prosecute you with

Mapp v. Ohio was a historical case in which the United States Supreme Court declared that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, could not be held against you in court ("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court," 2015). The exclusionary rule and selective incorporation were applied to this case. The ?exclusionary rule? which prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution along with selective incorporation which is how the rights out lined in the Constitution apply to the states and the courts must acknowledge these rights. (The Definition of Selective Incorporation, 2015). This case was also significant due to the fact that the decision would open up the court to a number of difficult cases concerning how to apply the exclusionary rule.

When it comes to the Fourth Amendment and searching a person’s car or their person, there are a few factors to take into consideration. In order for an officer to search an individual’s car, they must have consent, otherwise the search is unreasonable and whatever evidence seized could be inadmissible in the court of law. However, it is possible to conduct a search without consent and seize evidence without a warrant but there ought to be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. The two differ in the sense that reasonable suspicion is based off past experiences and expertise. Probable cause is needed for a search to take place; conversely if there is no probable cause but an officer has enough reasonable suspicion, they still are allowed to