Terry v. Ohio

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

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

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

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

Terry v. Ohio, a landmark case from 1968, where John W. Terry was stopped and later searched by Officer Martin McFadden because he suspected Terry of “casing” out a store to rob. McFadden decided to search Terry’s clothing for weapons before he questioned him about his suspicious behavior. The Fourth Amendment applies to this case because it protects people from “unreasonable searches and seizures” without a warrant or probable cause. The reason I chose this particular case to analyze is because

Aurelia Linda Bryant Gordon State College Chief Jeffrey Mason CRJU 1100: Intro to Criminal Justice, Section A Fall 2014 Semester Terry v. Ohio As American citizens, we are entitled to certain unalienable rights. As defined by Merriam-Webster, these rights are deemed to be impossible to take away or give up. (Online). These rights are found and clearly defined in the Amendments of our nation’s Constitution. Most often, the public’s attention surrounds rights contained within the first ten

John W. Terry v. Ohio 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

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

According to the Terry v. Ohio case the police officer noticed John W. Terry speaking to another person on a street corner while repeatedly walking up and down the same exact street. The two men would from time to time peak into a store window and then go back to speaking to one another again. The two men also spoke to a third man who they would ultimately follow up the street. The police officer assumed that John Terry and other two men were “casing” this particular store for a possible robbery

On October 31, 1963, a veteran detective of 39 years in downtown Cleveland noticed two men (one being the petitioner Terry) walking back in forth in front of the same store numerous times each. When they returned they would talk between each other for a few moments. Then, the men met with a third man and stood outside “suspiciously” chatting before the third man left (Terry v. Ohio). The officer suspected that the men were casing the stores for a stick-up or robbery and began to follow the two men