Terry v ohio case brief analysis. Case Brief Terry vs. Ohio Essay 2019-01-29

Terry v ohio case brief analysis Rating: 6,7/10 947 reviews

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

terry v ohio case brief analysis

The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times, pausing to stare inside a store window. Of course, the specific content and incidents of this right must be shaped by the context in which it is asserted. The Background of Terry v. Terry against the State of Ohio within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling: John Terry claimed that his arrest was the result of an invasion of privacy implemented through the violation of his 4th Amendment rights protecting him — as well as every citizen of the United States — from unlawful searches and seizures conducted by law enforcement agents United States Reports Case Number: 392 U. Taggart, supra, at 340, 214 N. Proper adjudication of cases in which the exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant awareness of these limitations. ? 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.

Next

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief Study Example

terry v ohio case brief analysis

The rule also serves another vital function--'the imperative of judicial integrity. The Detective performed the same pat down on Chilton and Katz, neither time putting his hands under the outer garments of the suspects, until he felt a gun and at. And that principle has survived to this day. 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. I do this because what is said by this Court today will serve as initial guidelines for law enforcement authorities and courts throughout the land as this important new field of law develops. The individuals were taken into police custody and charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.

Next

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

terry v ohio case brief analysis

He never did invade Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he discovered nothing in his patdown which might have been a weapon. No judicial opinion can comprehend the protean variety of the street encounter, and we can only judge the facts of the case before us. The scope of the search in this case presents no serious problem in light of these standards. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. I join the opinion of the Court, reserving judgment, however, on some of the Court's general remarks about the scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule which the Court has fashioned in the process of enforcing the Fourth Amendment. In this case, was the Fourth Amendment unreasonable, or did the police officer have a right to stop, seize and frisk the three men? Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer of others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a 'full' search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.

Next

Case Brief : Terry v. Ohio Study Example

terry v ohio case brief analysis

The stopping of the individual to inquire is not an arrest and the ground upon which the police may make the inquiry may be less incriminating than the ground for an arrest for a crime known to have been committed. This man then left the two others and walked west on Euclid Avenue. Judgment: Affirmed by the Majority. To access this section, please or. Street encounters between citizens and police officers are incredibly rich in diversity. 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. State of Ohio, 379 U.

Next

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

terry v ohio case brief analysis

Rather, he was involved in a Terry Stop situation instead. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the police should have the power to 'frisk' him for weapons. 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. And we said in Brinegar v. The remaining two murders were perpetrated by knives. 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.

Next

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

terry v ohio case brief analysis

We have said precisely the opposite over and over again. First, it fails to take account of traditional limitations upon the scope of searches, and thus recognizes no distinction in purpose, character, and extent between a search incident to an arrest and a limited search for weapons. However, in acknowledging that no valid distinction could be maintained on the basis of its cases, the Court of Appeals continued to distinguish between the two in theory. And while a search without a warrant is, within limits, permissible if incident to a lawful arrest, if an arrest without a warrant is to support an incidental search, it must be made with probable cause. United States, , 367 1964.

Next

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

terry v ohio case brief analysis

It was then stipulated that this testimony would be applied to the case against Terry, and no further evidence was introduced in that case. Store windows, moreover, are made to be looked in. Ohio, 1961 ; Elkins v. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look in a store window. If weapons are found, an arrest will follow. Asking questions first is not required. Later on they were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

Next

™ v ohio case Keyword Found Websites Listing

terry v ohio case brief analysis

Ohio: The Case Profile The Terry v. The man paused for a moment and looked in a store window, then walked on a short distance, turned around and walked back toward the corner, pausing once again to look in the same store window. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. A ruling admitting evidence in a criminal trial, we recognize, has the necessary effect of legitimizing the conduct which produced the evidence, while an application of the exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional imprimatur. As we stated in Henry v. In the left breast pocket of Terry's overcoat Officer McFadden felt a pistol.


Next

Case Brief Terry vs. Ohio Essay

terry v ohio case brief analysis

Police control took the place of judicial control, since no showing of 'probable cause' before a magistrate was required. 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. However, he testified that he had been a policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35 and that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for 30 years. Acceptably according to the rule of law; a police officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant,without a probable cause when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous Atkin,2013. United States and the concurring opinion in Warden v. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons.


Next