Abelardo Lopez Mr.Eilat Criminal science Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer. The way the police officer Martin McFadden had ignored the fourth amendment in order to catch John W. Terry & Chilton that was planning to rob a store and so the officer had stop and frisk the two suspect in which McFadden had found a concealed weapon which was a .38 caliber pistol and had two of the gun on them and so that they were charged by that ignoring the fourth amendment to find that the two were going to rob the place but also McFadden had frisked a person. Terry sentenced to 3 years, Chilton had served 13 months. Some issues with stop and frisk in some parts of New York they have to have practice of stop and frisk and there are some people have issues about it because they are ignoring the people's right of the …show more content…
Ohio is a united state that the Supreme Court that there decision concerning evidence to obtained as a part of unlawful arrest. So the story is kind of different from just two guys just standing around and looking at the window more than 24 times. But it had the samething like the police officer taking steps to assure himself that the person has a concealed weapon that can harm self and so he unexpectedly and fatally have been used against the him. Sure it will be like the terry vs. Ohio case and so that lead to an unreasonable search and that can risk the
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The case between Terry and the state of Ohio presented major concern for the Fourth Amendment which deals with unreasonable searches and seizure without a warrant. On October 31, 1963, Officer McFadden stopped and searched John W. Terry, Richard Chilton, and another individual for weapons during a night in the state of Ohio because he suspected that they were planning on robbing a store because they kept walking up and down in front of the store. The officer approached them announcing that he was a police officer and decided to search them for weapons for his own safety. The officer soon found out that Terry and Richard Chilton both had a concealed weapon with them and he confiscated the guns and both were taken into custody. The third individual
Ohio. The facts of the Terry case are as follows. “Terry and two other men were observed by a . . . policeman in what the officer believed to be ‘casing a job, a stick-up.’ The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail” (Oyez). Terry lost the case. The court said that “the officer acted on more than a ‘hunch’ and that ‘a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior’”
Notably, this law does not apply in all circumstances such as when there is reason to believe that the item being sought will be removed before a search warrant can be issued. Furthermore, automobile searches are often conducted without a search warrant. The Fourth Amendment is important because it provides U.S. citizens with a sense of autonomy over one’s self without the thought of being unjustly invaded by government officials. Due to the regulations imposed by this law American people can feel safe to conduct their lives as they normally would, providing that they are living within the limitations of the law. As a member of the minority community this law is of particular importance because it serves to police the police by holding them accountable and preventing them from targeting certain groups of people. While racial profiling has not been completely banned, this law reduces the number of individuals who would be unjustly targeted based on demographics and race. A legal scholar may disagree with the Fourth amendment and argue that the submission of evidence obtained illegally or without a warrant should be admissible if there was probable cause for an arrest even if the arrest is not directly linked to the evidence found which produced evidence of further criminal activity. Such as in the case of Utah vs. Strieff.
Stop and frisk is a brief, non-intrusive, police stop of a suspicious individual. The Fourth Amendment entails that the police have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, or is in progress before stopping a suspect. If the officer realistically is certain that the person is carrying a weapon and is dangerous, the officers can conduct a search, a rapid pat down of the suspect’s exterior clothing. A law enforcement officer may stop and briefly detain a person for investigatory purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts of impending criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is less demanding than probable cause, less quantity of evidence or information is needed. Reasonable suspicion can come from information less reliable than needed for probable cause.
Police conducted a routine traffic stop which led to the arrest of Willie Davis for giving a false name to the police. Davis was handcuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car. The police searched the passenger side of the vehicle and found a revolver in the pocket Davis’ jacket. Davis was convicted of “Felon in Possession of a Firearm” which he appealed to the appellate court on the grounds that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
The pros of Terry v. Ohio case, is that the police officer was doing there job. They are trying to prevent crime from happening, and keeping the community safe. A example of that in this case would be, where the officer stopped and frisked the three men and then found out that there was weapons on two of them. The two of them were convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. Think about it, what if the police officer did not do his job and did not stop and frisked them. Things may have been bad and get out of control. Overall, one of the cons that I can think of is; the search for weapons without probable cause is an unreasonable search but at the end, you could've argued with that, due to police officer safety.
Stop-and-frisk is a crime prevention action that allows a police officer to stop and frisk a pedestrian without probable cause to arrest, if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime (Stop and Frisk). It was first approved by the Supreme Court in 1968 after the case Terry v. Ohio, which was considered as a landmark decision. The purpose was to reduce the number of crimes and limited use of firearms; but after several years of implementation, it has faced so many oppositions from the people, and did not really get the positive results.
California]. Chimel stands in a long line of cases recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest. The basis for this exception is that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for a police officer to expect the arrestee to use any weapons he may have and to attempt to destroy any incriminating evidence then in his possession.” (Casebriefs) In this case, Chimel v. California, it was decided that if a police officer had reasonable suspicion that a suspect was suspicion they could arrest and conduct a search. Unlike the situation in this case, the police did not have a warrant for Cupp’s arrest. Nor did they have at that moment any reason to arrest him. Thus, the situation is a bit different than the one previously. While the judges may have caught a murderer, their actions did not respect the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Cupp was seized, violating his protection from unwarranted seizures. This case was not a correct interpretation of the Fourth
In the year of 1914, in the groundbreaking case of Weeks v. United States, the Court apprehended consistently that illegal removal of materials from a persons’ home was an abuse of the Fourth Amendment, and recognized the exclusionary rule that disallows acceptance of unlawfully gathered proof in federal courts. The Bill of Rights did not cover the states at this time, only federal trials and federal agents were protected making this significant. The Exclusionary rule was not drawn-out to the state courts until the case Mapp v. Ohio
All around the world there is many issues going on, but the one that is the most meaningful to me is Stop and frisk. Stop and frisk is the concept of Police officers having the ability to stop individuals on the street if they allegedly sense any suspicion of criminal activity. Due to the 4th amendment the police are allowed to do this. Yes, this may not sound like a bad idea but Stop and frisk is a waste of time, privacy invading, and not a very accurate thing to do to everyone.
Ohio case, the question was whether evidences obtained illegally through warrantless search can be used or not. The case focused on Mapp and how the Cleveland police illegally enter her home, look for evidences that does not exist and found something else which they decided that they can use against Mapp.
Justice Brennan ruled that the protective sweep went beyond the Terry v Ohio decision because Officer McFadden exercises all the exclusionary rule that was in his guideline to do. Officer McFadden used his observation and intuition to acknowledge that there was something usually going on between the men as they cross street to street and converse. However, Officer McFadden had probable cause to believe that these individuals maybe armed and dangerous. Therefore, this officer felt that it was imperative for him to protect himself and other civilian by taken a swift measure. I felt he made the correct decision to identify himself the three gentlemen and frisk search them of any items that may be considered as a weapon. Nevertheless, in the process,
Stop and frisk has encountered many opponents who think this tool is discriminatory and often targets minorities, specifically black and Hispanic people. For that reason, a federal judge ruled to use this practice more judicious after hundreds of complains against the police department. However, the community is calling back for stop and frisk since they have noticed that it is a necessary practice to keep a safe city. Thus, the problem regarding is the increase of violence in New York City due to the restriction and less use of stop and frisk.
Garner). Kingsley was caught in a grey zone in between the eighth amendment and the fourth amendment which showed the people of the court that there should be an inclusion of rights for a suspect in holding to not be abused or touched by a police officer. (Kingsley v.