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. The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.
This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances. Officer McFadden patted down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions.
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. Rule of Law To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.
I would, however, make explicit what I think is implicit in affirmance on  the present facts. Fifty-five of the 57 officers killed in died from gunshot wounds, 41 of them inflicted by handguns easily secreted about the person. We are now concerned with more than the governmental interest in investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him.
There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning however. Ultimately, the validity of the frisk narrows down to whether there is or is not a right by the police to touch the person questioned.
At one point, while the two were standing together on the corner, a third man approached them and engaged them briefly in conversation. Reflective of the tensions involved are the practical and constitutional arguments pressed with great vigor on both sides of the public debate over the power of the police to "stop and frisk" -- as it is sometimes euphemistically termed -- suspicious persons.
But the story is quite different where, as here, two men hover about a street corner for an extended period of time, at the end of which it becomes apparent that they are Terry vs ohio case waiting for anyone or anything; where these men pace alternately along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window roughly 24 times; where each completion of this route is followed immediately by a conference between the two men on the corner; where they are joined in one of these conferences by a third man who leaves swiftly; and where the two men finally follow the third and rejoin him a couple of blocks away.
The Court held that stopping someone for brief questioning and conducting a pat-down search did constitute a search as defined by the Fourth Amendment; however, it held that such a stop-and-frisk did not necessarily violate the constitutional ban of unreasonable searches and seizures. The sole justification of the search in the present situation is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.
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.
Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement. The holding has, however, two logical corollaries that I do not think the Court has fully expressed.
There is nothing unusual in two men standing together on a street corner, perhaps waiting for someone. Consequently, the Ohio courts did not rest the constitutionality of this frisk upon any general authority in Officer McFadden to take reasonable steps to protect the citizenry, including himself, from dangerous weapons.
When he did, he had no reason whatever to suppose that Terry might be armed, apart from the fact that he suspected him of planning a violent crime.
I The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. The appeals court affirmed the decision.
Moreover, hostile confrontations are not all of a piece. Nothing we say today is to be taken as indicating approval of police conduct outside the legitimate investigative sphere. Thus, evidence may not be introduced if it was discovered by means of a seizure and search which were not reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation.
Terry, 5 Ohio App. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest. Unquestionably petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the street in Cleveland.
Just as a full search incident to a lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a limited frisk incident to a lawful stop must often be rapid and routine. Applying these principles to this case, we consider first the nature and extent of the governmental interests involved.
The lone dissenter was Justice William Douglaswho argued that the Court had provided the police with more legal authority to conduct searches and seizures than justices have to provide a court order that authorizes a search or seizure. These limitations will have to be developed in the concrete factual circumstances of individual cases.
Or the police may be seeking to mediate a domestic quarrel which threatens to erupt into violence. Concealed weapons create an immediate  and severe danger to the public, and though that danger might not warrant routine general weapons checks, it could well warrant action on less than a "probability.
However, this argument must be closely examined. The exclusionary rule has its limitations, however, as a tool of judicial control. Ohio Case Brief Statement of Facts: They were represented by the same attorney, and they made a joint motion to suppress the guns.
Acquiescence by the courts in the compulsion inherent [p12] in the field interrogation practices at issue here, it is urged, would constitute an abdication of judicial control over, and indeed an encouragement of, substantial interference with liberty and personal security by police officers whose judgment is necessarily colored by their primary involvement in "the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime.
In my view, it is temporary detention, warranted by the circumstances, which chiefly justifies the protective frisk for weapons. He rejoined his companion at the corner, and the two conferred briefly.Later known as the “stop and frisk” case, Terry v.
Ohio represents a clash between Fourth Amendment protection from intrusive, harassing conduct by police when no crime has been committed, and the duty of an officer to. Terry v.
Ohio was a landmark United States Supreme Court case. The case dealt with the ‘stop and frisk’ practice of police officers, and whether or not it violates the U.S.
Constitution’s Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Terry v. Ohio, U.S. Supreme Court decision, issued on June 10,which held that police encounters known as stop-and-frisks, in which members of the public are stopped for questioning and patted down for weapons and drugs without probable cause, do not constitute a violation of the Fourth.
Ohio in Arizona v. Johnson. In that case, the Court ruled 9–0 in favor of further expanding Terry, granting police the ability to frisk an individual in a stopped vehicle if there is reasonable suspicion to believe the individual is armed and dangerous.
Held. The Supreme Court of the United States (“Supreme Court”) held that it is a reasonable search when an officer performs a quick seizure and a limited search for weapons on a person that the officer reasonably believes could be armed. Terry v. Ohio was the landmark case that provided the name for the “ Terry stop.” It established the constitutionality of a limited search for weapons when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is afoot based on the circumstances.Download