Terry V. Ohio

terry v. Ohio Case Project Victoria Swannegan 12/2/2010 In 1968 a circumstance called Terry v. Ohio took place. This fiber made a big pertain on the police departments of the United States by giving incumbents more reasons to bring on an arrest. A Terry Stop is a stop of a someone by law enforcement policemans based upon reasonable suspicion that a somebody may have been engaged in immoral activity, whereas an arrest requires potential crusade that a suspect committed a criminal offense.A Cleveland tec (McFadden), on a d havetown beat which he had been patrolling for human beingsy years, discover two stranger on a street corner. He apothegm them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to discern in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference mingled with the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man who left swiftly.Suspecting the two men of display case a job, a stick-up, the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the iii, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men mumbled something, whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his foreign wearable, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store.He removed petitioners overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer(a)most clothing of Chilton and Katz and catchd a revolver from Chiltons outside overcoat pocket. He did not mark his hands low the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioners or Chiltons outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were aerated with carrying concealed weapons.The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial philander rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into establish on the lay down that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed.The court distinguished between an inquiring stop and an arrest, and between a frisk of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, an in endpointediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that no substantial constitutional question was involved. Terry was protect by The poo p Amendment but the officer had a probable cause. The one-fourth Amendment to the U. S.Constitution protects somebodyal privacy, and every citizens right to be free from unreasonable organization intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property, whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses. The Fourth Amendment provides safeguards to one-on-ones during searches and detentions, and prevents unlawfully seized items from being used as evidence in criminal cases. The degree of protection available in a particular case depends on the nature of the detention or arrest, the characteristics of the place searched, and the circumstances under which the search takes place.In the case, they used a term called Stop and Frisk. This is a situation in which a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his hands lightly over the suspects outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a c oncealed weapon. Unlike a full search, a frisk is generally limited to a patting down of the outer clothing. If the officer feels what seems to be a weapon, the officer may then reach inside the persons clothing.If no weapon is felt, the search may not intrude further than the outer clothing. A full search is called Search and Seizure. It is the legal term used to describe a law enforcement agents interrogation of a persons home, vehicle, or business to find evidence that a crime has been committed. If evidence is found, the agent may then seize it. Search and seizure also includes placing an individual under arrest. The Terry v. Ohio case made a phenomenal change. It made a difference in which people can be searched arrested.