Terry Vs Ohio Essay

Improved Essays
Terry v. Ohio

The Supreme Court case I will be writing about is Terry v. Ohio. The case happened in 1968. The case is also known as the stop and frisk case. The case is about the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects people from government seizures and searches. A police officer saw a couple of men acting suspiciously outside a store in Ohio. The officer found weapons on the men. One of the men, named John Terry, argued the stop and search violated their rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court said that the stop and frisk conducted by the police officer was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. The courts that heard this case before the U.S. The Supreme Court is the Cleveland Municipal Court, the
…show more content…
The arguments for Terry were Fourth Amendment violation, Prejudicial Profiling, and Lack of Specificity in Suspicion. The arguments for the officer were Limited Intrusion, Reasonable Suspicion, and Public Protection. Terry wanted to challenge the officer and say that the search was unconstitutional. Terry wanted the court to favor him and say that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The decision was that the search and seizure by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court vote in the majority was an 8-1 decision. The date for the majority decision was June 10, 1968. The justices who voted for the majority were Earl Warren, Hugo Black, John Harlan, William Brennan, Potter Stewart, Byron White, Abe Fortas, and Thurgood Marshall. Earl Warren wrote the majority decision. The majority opinion was that police officers can stop and frisk suspicious individuals. Officers may take steps to ensure safety. The search by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Concurrent opinions were written by Hugo Black, John Harlan, and Byron White. The concurrent opinions are different from the majority opinion because the Supreme Court’s vote in the majority was 8-1. William Douglas wrote the opinion

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments violated? Holding: The Trial Court held that the officer did have probable cause to search the vehicle and arrest the three men. The Supreme Court held that the officer did have probable cause to believe that Pringle had committed the crime of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Courts holding that the officer had probable cause to arrest Pringle also proves that the officer did not violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.…

    • 762 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Indeed, the Terry search principle was regarded, and the limit to which it was supposed to be conducted was reviewed, Terry vs. Ohio case. The court further went into other cases that had resolved issues on the fourth amendment and the Terry search (Minnesota v Dickerson, 1993). Indeed, in Michigan vs. Long, the Court held that in the context of that case, a Terry search allowed the search of the individual and passenger’s compartments of the automobile to ascertain beyond doubt that the defendant was not armed and dangerous. In limited cases, the Court held that when contraband is retrieved, then the officer cannot ignore the contraband as the Fourth Amendment does not suppress it under those circumstances. However, the court in Long had ruled that if police lacked probable cause in believing that the object in plain view was contraband then conducting a further search to make the object apparent would make the plain view doctrine unwarranted with the seizure of the contraband.…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Terry Vs Ohio Case Study

    • 525 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In particular the question arises if it is a violation of “Stop and Frisk” under the Fourth Amendment based on the suspicions of the officer at the time of the immediate contact with the petitioner. The issue specifically refers to whether the officer in this case had the right to “Stop and Frisk” the subject without probable cause based on the observations of the officer and recovered dangerous weapons from the subjects…

    • 525 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The Amendment requires that any legal search of an individual’s property requires law enforcement to provide a warrant. Furthermore, the permit is a protection element to the officers and assists with the preservation and accountability of the evidence. Also, since the police did not use force to remove Grant from his automobile and he voluntarily left his vehicle, the court enhances that the arrest was not directly connected to the sentence and detention. For the above reason, the Supreme Court identified the violation of the Fourth Amendment. Lastly, Terry Goddard, the Arizona Attorney General, stated at the US Supreme court that the Arizona Supreme Court verdict on the evidence found in Grant’s car conflicted with both the federal and state…

    • 1120 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    574, 13 A.L.R. 1159], holding that Fourth Amendment proscriptions against unreasonable searches and seizures do not apply to private conduct, is still good law and controlling” (Stanford Law School,…

    • 539 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Achman Case Study

    • 748 Words
    • 3 Pages

    During the search, police found things like a Uzi machine gun, a .38 caliber revolver, two stun guns, and a handcuff key, but did not find the supposedly stolen stuff. Police Officers did confiscate the weapons while in search for the stolen items and used it in court. So therefore his fourth amendment was violated. The 4th amendment states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. " This action performed by the police officers reminds me of the supreme court case, Mapp V. Ohio.…

    • 748 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Conner (1989) is a second Supreme Court ruling determined that the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonable test” for officers who use any kind of force, in cases where citizens claim that the force was excessive, is for the jury to ask themselves: “would a reasonable person, standing in the officer’s shoes at the moment, have acted by using deadly force?” I do not think this is justified because people are not cops, people who are not cops do not have police training. So, they cannot think like police officers, officers have the ability to think before doing something and they use this to say they were scared when they weren’t. So, the jury shouldn’t put themselves in the police offices shoes and they should look at the evidence and go by…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The fourth amendment prohibits those from being victim to unreasonable searches and seizures. What defines…

    • 1234 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The fourth amendment protects all citizens from illegal searches and seizure of their possessions and property. The Weeks v. United States case law was established in 1914, which consisted of police entering Fremont Weeks home and illegally seizing evidence of Weeks transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This case is what brought forth the exclusionary rule, which makes any evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure possibly inadmissible in court. To uphold the fourth amendment, officers need a probable cause to justify the search of someone’s home and other property. To establish probable cause, officers need factual evidence that leads them to believe that the suspect has committed a crime.…

    • 482 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mapp Exclusionary Rule

    • 549 Words
    • 3 Pages

    The United States Supreme Court announced their decision on June 19, 1961. The Supreme Court ruled six to three in favor of Mapp, the Court considered the search a violation of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Chief Justice Warren and Justices Clark, Black, Douglas, Brennan and Stewart agreed the police abused their power against Mapp’s will. Moreover, the Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to the case, which means evidence obtained illegally can’t be used in court. The Constitution stated the police need a warrant in order to search a person’s house.…

    • 549 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Why Probable Cause Exists

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment to the constitution states a person's right to privacy and protects people from unlawful search and seizures. In order for a law enforcement officer to be able to conduct a lawful search and seizure, the officer must provide a search warrant or have probable cause. However, there are some exceptions to this requirement. Under normal circumstances, a law enforcement officer must first indicate that probable cause exists. Probable cause is defined as but is not limited to, a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or that somebody has committed a crime.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Ms. Mapp’s argued that her rights under the Fourth Amendment were violated by the search, and she took her appeal to the Supreme Court. In a 5 – 3 vote the Supreme Court voted in favor of Ms. Mapp (United States Courts, 2016). The standards for searches and seizures by law enforcement are set by the 4th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment obligates…

    • 1372 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In law enforcement there are numerous searches that can be conducted by law enforcement and they may range from search of premises or a vehicle, search of public places, stop and frisk, and plain view searches. It is always important for both parties (suspect and police) to grasp how the rights and legality relating to search and seizure, arrest, and interrogation have shaped the role of law enforcement in these processes. Therefore, to fully understand “search and seizure, arrest, and interrogation” and the rights of suspects and of the police too, one must: comprehend the importance of the fourth amendment, grasp how Miranda takes into play in regards to arrest and interrogation and its limitations, and fully understand the arresting process. To begin with, in order to grasp what is “right” during a search and/or seizure it is beneficial to know what is permissible by the fourth amendment and what it means to you, the officer, or to you, the suspect. For insistence, for a police officer the fourth amendment is essential to their job duties because it gives an officer the layout of how to investigate unlawful acts and suspects which is by having probable cause.…

    • 1720 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Probable Cause

    • 421 Words
    • 2 Pages

    The Fourth Amendment was put into place to protect the rights of the American people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The U.S. Constitution specifically states “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” (U.S. Constitution – Amendment 4). Additional, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that some searches and seizures may be classified as constitutional based on reasonable suspicion and not justified as probable cause. (Lushbaugh, C. A. and Weston, P. B. (2012) Probable cause is a discretionary law that is left up to the officer to determine if he/she has adequate information to entertain probable cause.…

    • 421 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Fourth Amendment One of our most fundamental rights, the Fourth Amendment, where its importance its crucial to comprehend for the sake of every individual in the United States. This particular amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers against unreasonable searches and seizures( Swanson, Territo & Taylor, 2017). The Fourth Amendment and its meaning are essential for people to comprehend as we are prone to mistakes from police officers since not many of us know our rights. Such amendment and its importance play a vital role determining whether procedures were followed when police officers are conducting a search or arrest. Reasonable Suspicion Reasonable suspicious is based on a strong suspicion that is not that very reliable that a person might be involved in criminal activities or may be armed and dangerous…

    • 642 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays