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
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 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 constitutional requirements of stop and frisk practices were bought up by the Supreme Court during the court case of Terry v. Ohio. Before this case, it was illegal for Police Officers to stop someone and frisk them unless they were being arrested or have a search warrant for that person. After various cases that tested the constitutional rights of Americans such as Sibron v. New York, Peters v. New York and Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court cane to the conclusion that police officers can frisk someone without having
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
There has always been tension raised between maintaining a safe society and observing by the constitutional rights of its citizens. The New York City aggressive program of Stop and Frisk have been widely criticized and considered unconstitutional. However, Stop and Frisk, per se is not unconstitutional unless people are being stopped illegally. It 's a crime prevention tool that allows police officers to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to conduct a frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Some argue this policy was created to target minorities. Most of the people who have been stopped and frisked under this program have been African American or Hispanic. This concerns citizens and makes them oppose the policy because they believe its racial profiling and guided by color. Stop and frisk is now one of the biggest controversies in United States. It has become something that is affecting society in both a positive and negative way.
Eighty-seven percent of stops in 2012, were Black and Hispanic people. Compare that percentage to the amount of water on Earth, only seventy percent. Now, imagine eighty-seven percent water covering the Earth. That would make the world unbalanced and difficult to live in, which is how life is for the minorities impacted by Stop and Frisk. One of the most debated and controversial topics in New York City is the Stop and Frisk policy, and the impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts).
At the core of the stop and frisk policy as utilized by the New York Police Department is racial profiling. Racial profiling has a significant and often controversial place in the history of policing in the United States. Racial profiling can be loosely defined as the use of race as a key determinant in law enforcement decisions to stop, interrogate, and/or detain citizens (Weitzer & Tuch, 2002). Laws in the United States have helped to procure and ensure race based decisions in law enforcement. Historically, the Supreme Court has handed down decisions which increase the scope of discretion of a law enforcement officer. For example, traffic stops can be used to look for evidence even though the officer has not observed
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.
Many people have fought against what they felt were unconstitutional searches by the government or its agents, therefore there have been landmark Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the Fourth Amendment. In Terry v. Ohio (Stop-and-Frisk) (1968) the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a
Stop-and-frisk, a crime prevention tactic that allows a police officer to stop a person based on "reasonable suspicion, of criminal activity and frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. In fact, Judge Scheindlin pointedly wrote in her opinion that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk.” She said they could continue if the city complied with court-ordered remedies to make sure that the stops and frisks did not violate the Constitution. Scheindlin called these “Terry stops,” referring to Terry v. Ohio, in which the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled that a police officer can stop and frisk individuals where there is a reasonable basis for
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.
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights report, stop and frisk is “the practice by which a police officer initiates a stop of an individual…allegedly based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” (2012). This practice dates back to the Terry vs. Ohio case in 1968 where the police “are authorized to stop a person…without a warrant” if the law enforcement officials have a reasonable suspicion that an individual is about to commit a crime (“Terry vs. Ohio,” 1968). Mcfadden, a detective, was patrolling his downtown beat when he discovered Terry as well as his two male accomplices roaming the same area more than 24 times, while stopping to look in the same store window. Their actions stimulated suspicion and Mcfadden approached the men and identified himself as a policeman. Mcfadden frisked Terry and found a revolver in his overcoat pocket and was then charged with carrying a concealed weapon (“Terry vs. Ohio,” 1968). The Supreme Court’s decision though, rejected the argument that the stop and frisk of Terry did not trigger the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court
Terry vs. Ohio is a Supreme Court case which ruled on the legality of Stop and Frisks. The case eventually rules that Stop and Frisks do not violate a suspect’s fourth amendment right. The facts of this case surround the defendant, John Terry, who was frisked by Officer Martin McFadden. McFadden was watching Terry, along with one other man, with reasonable suspicion that he was planning on robbing a store. McFadden approached them, stopped them and proceeded to frisk them.While frisking Terry, McFadden found a gun. Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivers the court’s opinion which expresses the rule for the legality of Stop and Frisks. A Stop and Frisk does not infringe on a suspect’s fourth amendment rights if the need to search is greater than
A protective sweep beings that it is a brief sweep and also limited warrantless search of an arrestee’s home, which is permitted if the defendant is arrested therein (Hall, 2016.) The purpose of the sweep is to check the house for other persons who may pose a danger to the arresting officers (Hall, 2016.) I don’t believe that the protective sweep goes beyond the Terry v. Ohio case because each and every officer has a right to feel safe and protected once arresting an individual. In the case of Terry v Ohio, I do believe that the officer had every right to protect himself.