In an 8-to-1 decision, Justice Douglas dissenting, the Court addressed several piv-otal legal issues that have led to a substantial body of law allowing stops and searches in a variety of contexts.
I would make it perfectly clear that the right to frisk in this case depends upon the reasonableness of a forcible stop to investigate a suspected crime. V We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. One general interest is, of course, that of effective crime prevention and detection; it is this interest which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.
Thus, it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.
Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.
During the search, marijuana was found, and the driver was charged with possession. At this point, his knowledge was confined to what he had observed. If a concealed weapon is found during the frisk, then the officer may seize the weapon and detain the suspect on the charge of carrying a concealed weapon Srickland, Chilton and Terry resumed their measured pacing, peering, and conferring.
Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts. Thus, the search was reasonably related in scope to the concern for his own safety that justified the stop from the beginning. In the first place, if the frisk is justified in order to protect the officer during an encounter with a citizen, the officer must first have constitutional grounds to insist on an encounter, to make a forcible stop.
The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man, in the circumstances, would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger.
Asking questions first is not required. Under our decision, courts still retain their traditional responsibility to guard against police conduct which is overbearing or harassing, or which trenches upon personal security without the objective evidentiary justification which the Constitution requires.
By this time, Officer McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious. McFadden did identify himself and on questioning the suspects found it necessary to frisk them. Permitting a police officer to conduct a search and seizure on the basis of reasonable suspicion provides an officer with greater authority than a judge and is improper.
It seeks to isolate from constitutional scrutiny the initial stages of the contact between the policeman and the citizen. When he failed to get a clear response, the detective grabbed Terry and turned him around so he was facing his friends and was between his friends and the detective. Petitioner contends that such an intrusion is permissible only incident to a lawful arrest, either for a crime involving the possession of weapons or for a crime the commission of which led the officer to investigate in the first place.
He had also known the amount of times they had performed the same routine. It is quite plain that the Fourth Amendment governs "seizures" of the person which do not eventuate in a trip to the stationhouse and prosecution for crime -- "arrests" in traditional terminology.
He never did invade Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon.
The case itself raised the question of when a stop and frisk begins and where it ends, challenging the philosophy of the routine. The initial stages of the encounter need to follow specific regimens of communicating with a suspect (Terry vs.
Ohio, ). Citation. U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct.20 L. Ed.
2d () Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, John W. Terry (the “Petitioner”), was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery.
A Review of the Facts in the Infamous Case "Terry vs. Ohio" PAGES 1. WORDS View Full Essay. More essays like this: the united states, terry vs ohio case, police officer mcfadden, fourth amendment.
Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin - Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University. Exactly what I needed. Ohio in Arizona v.
Johnson. In that case, the Court ruled 9–0 in favor of further expanding Terry, granting police the ability to frisk an individual in a stopped vehicle if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the individual is armed and dangerous. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2dN.E.2d ().
The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no "substantial constitutional question" was involved. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no "substantial constitutional question" was involved.
Terry v. Ohio U.S.
1 () Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, John W. Terry (the “Petitioner”), was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.
Synopsis of Rule of Law.A review of the facts in the infamous 1968 case terry vs ohio