Terry v ohio case brief. Case Brief : Terry v. Ohio Study Example 2019-01-28

Terry v ohio case brief Rating: 4,7/10 168 reviews

Terry v. Ohio :: 392 U.S. 1 (1968) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

terry v ohio case brief

The question is whether, in all the circumstances of this on-the-street encounter, his right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. The sense of exterior touch here involved is not very far different from the sense of sight or hearing-- senses upon which police customarily act. To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Detective McFadden was unable to remove the pistol and ordered all three men in the store, to stand against a wall with their hands up. Ohio: Martin McFadden was a police officer in Ohio who noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting suspiciously.

Next

Terry v Ohio Flashcards

terry v ohio case brief

The holding has, however, two logical corollaries that I do not think the Court has fully expressed. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice found that ' i n many communities, field interrogations are a major source of friction between the police and minority groups. And we said in Brinegar v. For legal advice, please contact your attorney.

Next

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

terry v ohio case brief

This case made a big impact on the police departments of the United States by giving officers more reasons to make an arrest. During one of these discussions, McGurn said that a termination clause covering his initial. A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest, however, must, like any other search, be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its initiation. Petitioner does not argue that a police officer should refrain from making any investigation of suspicious circumstances until such time as he has probable cause to make an arrest; nor does he deny that police officers, in properly discharging their investigative function, may find themselves confronting persons who might well be armed and dangerous. The court adjudged them guilty, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed. Also in 1966, there were 23,851 assaults on police officers, 9,113 of which resulted in injuries to the policeman.

Next

Case Brief : Terry v. Ohio Study Example

terry v ohio case brief

When such conduct is identified, it must be condemned by the judiciary and its fruits must be excluded from evidence in criminal trials. While one day observing his eye was instantly caught by two men, Chilton and Terry who appeared to be suspicious, and who he had never seen before, so he kept alert like all good policemen would do. They were joined by another man, Kartz, who left the two abruptly. It was then stipulated that this testimony would be applied to the case against Terry, and no further evidence was introduced in that case. In essence, a peace officer is allowed to make a reasonable search for weapons if he feels his life may be in danger, and the question posed is whether or not the frisking of the three suspects was warranted. What are the future effects of this Case on policing and law enforcement? The men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street. When McFadden approached the two men and identified himself as a law enforcement officer, he walked them down the street and frisked them for weapons or illegal drugs.


Next

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

terry v ohio case brief

But this is not so. This is particularly true in situations where the 'stop and frisk' of youths or minority group members is 'motivated by the officers' perceived need to maintain the power image of the beat officer, an aim sometimes accomplished by humiliating anyone who attempts to undermine police control of the streets. LaFave, Arrest -- The Decision to Take a Suspect into Custody 1-13 1965. Rotenberg, Detection of Crime: Stopping and Questioning, Search and Seizure, Encouragement and Entrapment 18--56 1967. Ohio: The Background Martin McFadden was a police officer in Ohio who noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting suspiciously.

Next

The Horseback Riders: Case Brief: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

terry v ohio case brief

Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. He was not acquainted with any of the three men by name or by sight, and he had received no information concerning them from any other source. He lost his case 8 to 1, and the search was found to be legal because there was cause to believe the Officer might be in danger and the citizens might be in danger. Courts which sit under our Constitution cannot and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered governmental use of the fruits of such invasions. McFadden arrested and charged Terry and Chilton with carrying concealed weapons.

Next

Case Brief Terry vs. Ohio Essay

terry v ohio case brief

In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. Had a warrant been sought, a magistrate would, therefore, have been unauthorized to issue one, for he can act only if there is a showing of 'probable cause. So far as appears from the record, he never placed his hands beneath Katz' outer garments. Petitioner Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to the statutorily prescribed term of one to three years in the penitentiary. He had observed Terry, together with Chilton and another man, acting in a manner he took to be preface to a 'stick- up. We cannot tell with any certainty upon this record whether any such 'seizure' took place here prior to Officer McFadden's initiation of physical contact for purposes of searching Terry for weapons, and we thus may assume that up to that point no intrusion upon constitutionally protected rights had occurred. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them.

Next

Terry v Ohio Flashcards

terry v ohio case brief

They were represented by the same attorney, and they made a joint motion to suppress the guns. How to Write a Research Paper on Terry v. The two men were joined by a third, Katz, who quickly left the scene after a brief appearance. He saw that the men rejoined Katz and approached them to ask what their names were. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. When such conduct is identified, it must be condemned by the judiciary, and its fruits must be excluded from evidence in criminal trials. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket.

Next

Terry v. Ohio Legal Case Brief Research Papers on Constitutional Rights

terry v ohio case brief

The sense of exterior touch here involved is not very far different from the sense of sight or hearing -- senses upon which police customarily act. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. Whatever the merits of gun control proposals, this fact is relevant to an assessment of the need for some form of self-protective search power. Court Decision The Court affirmed the decision of the trial court and the appellate court. It cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate police investigative techniques on the ground that much conduct which is closely similar involves unwarranted intrusions upon constitutional protections. This Case Brief also aims at answering some of the following questions: 1.

Next

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

terry v ohio case brief

These encounters, now called terry stops, are vital to the safety of law enforcement and are used throughout the United States to detect, prevent, and deter criminal activity. Suffice it to note that such a search, unlike a search without a warrant incident to a lawful arrest, is not justified by any need to prevent the disappearance or destruction of evidence of crime. In my view, it is temporary detention, warranted by the circumstances, which chiefly justifies the protective frisk for weapons. Ohio was whether the activities of police in the context of a stop and frisk was a violation of the that would prevent the introduction of any evidence seized in such activity at trail by operation of the exclusionary rule. See also cases cited in n. The Fourth Amendment provides for protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but does not protect suspects who are acting in a suspicious manner from being questioned by peace officers and possibly searched for contraband if the officer s believe the situation can escalate to a matter of life and limb.

Next