Terry V. Ohio Case

In the Supreme Court case of South Dakota v. Opperman in 1976, it was decided by local police that it was not a violation of Opperman’s fourth amendment rights for the marijuana that had been found after police had impounded the vehicle. The Supreme Court then reviewed it, and found “that local police violated the Fourth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, as applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment, when they conducted a routine inventory search of an automobile lawfully impounded by police for violations of municipal parking ordinances.” (Supreme Court of United States, 1976) These cases helped add limits to the searches that police officers are allowed to conduct without a warrant, and when pulling someone over. Another case was New York v. Belton. In this case, a police officer pulled over a car with four men, and smelt marijuana. (Chase, 2006) The Supreme Court held that an officer might search the passenger side of an automobile after an arrest. (Chase, 2006) These cases helped bring more light to what police officers were allowed to do when they were searching vehicles they had pulled

Search and seizure is a vital and controversial part of criminal justice, from the streets to the police station to court. It is guided by the Fourth Amendment, which states that people have the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure of their bodies, homes, papers, and possessions and that warrants describing what and where will be searched and/or seized are required to be able to search the above things (“Fourth Amendment,” n.d.). Interpretations of the Fourth Amendment by the U.S. Supreme Court and the establishment of case law by many state and federal courts have expanded upon the circumstances under which search and seizure is legal. Several doctrines and exceptions have also emerged from the Supreme Court and other case law that guide law enforcement officers on the job and aid lawyers in court.

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

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

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

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

The most controversial aspect of the fourth amendment is the debate over what constitutes as a legitimate search. Since the amendment’s addition to the constitution on December 15, 1791, citizens have questioned police action. The case of United States vs. Jacobsen states that “A seizure of property occurs when the government meaningfully interferes with a person’s possessory interest.”

Both the fourth and fifth amendment protect the privacies of individuals from governmental intrusion. Appellant Boyd complained that she was denied her constitutional right to testify. The right to testify comes from many amendments and clauses in the constitution such as the due process clauses, the Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment. The court held that “ the search for and seizure of evidence within an accused’s possession might well result in compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.” Then, the court reasoned that the search was unreasonable “ab initio” and it makes it a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Black mentioned in his concurrence that if something is obtained illegally, it cannot be used again the appellant. The Boyd’s case was not the only case mentioned in the Mapp v. Ohio opinion. Additionally, Weeks v. United States (1914) was a case that determined the warrantless seizure of items from an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio in which she was suspected of having bombs inside her house. One day, the police came to her house without a search warrant; however, the police barged into her house and pulled a paper stating it was a search warrant, but they did not let her closely examine it. The police searched in her daughter’s room and everywhere inside the house, and saw obscene pictures while searching; therefore, they arrested her. The court found her guilty, but she appealed her case to the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Supreme Court said that the police’s action are probably illegal, but the pictures could be used against her.

Terry v. Ohio was a pivotal case for the Fourth Amendment and for the citizens of the United States of America. As referenced by the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, in nineteen sixty three an off duty detective in Cleveland, Ohio stopped and frisked two African American men and one white man based on a ‘reasonable suspicion that the men were about to commit a crime’ (ACLUOhio, 2014). The ruling of this case has set in motion the gross abuse of stop and frisks in minority communities and among minority races in the twenty-first century; ultimately racial profiling in a post-racial era.

Prior to the Revolutionary War, the right to be safe against arbitrary searches and seizures did not exist in the United States of America (Levy, 1999). The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution addresses search and seizure statues, it states ...

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.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “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 (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

In some scenarios such as when consent search is given in the case of Ohio v. Robinette (1996), third party consent in the case of Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990), plain feel in the case of Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), plain smell in the case of the United States v. Haley (1982), police may conduct a search without a warrant. On many occasions police have no specific cause for these searches other than their confidence that they would valuables items not limited to illicit goods. For instance, the NYPD infamously used to search for drugs and guns in the pockets of hundreds of thousands of young men, disproportionately black and brown, on the streets of New York in the 2000s. In a landmark legal ruling, a federal district judge found that “stop