Terry v. Ohio (Essay Sample)

Terry v. Ohio
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Professor
Date
Introduction
In the case of Terry v. Ohio, argued December 12, 1967 and decided June 10, 1968, the United States Supreme court held "stop and frisk" searches by law enforcement officers. According to the case, a Cleveland law enforcement officer, McFadden, was on a patrol tour of a street he patrolled for many years. While on the patrol, he saw two suspects on a street corner, circle the same spot for a long time while observing a store. The suspects looked into the same store for 24 times after which they met at another corner where they met another man who left hastily (LII, 1992).
The detective, McFadden, suspecting the men of planning to carry out a violent followed them. On following them to a street corner, the officer saw them rejoin the third man, identified as Katz, in front of another store. The Cleveland detective decided to approach the three men to seek their identification. The officer asked the three men to identify themselves, which they did not respond to sufficiently. The detective, McFadden, ordered the men around after whom he carried outer clothing frisk on the three suspects. The officer noticed a weapon in one of the overcoat pockets of the suspect but was unable to retrieve it. He ordered the three suspects into the store where he ordered the suspect to remove the overcoat to remove the pistol. From one of the two men, identified as Chilton, the officer recovered a revolver. However, he did not search the outer garments of the third man, identified as Katz since he did not feel anything that felt like a weapon in the first frisk (Katz, 2005).
The three men were arrested where they were charged possession of concealed weapons. Although the trial court denied the prosecution’s argument that, the weapons were recovered during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the defense move to suppress the weapon possession charges were also denied. The trial court admitted the weapons recovered from the two suspects on the ground that the law enforcement officer had cause to believe the men were planning a crime. The court admitted the weapons as evidence in case after agreeing that the officer had a right to interrogate the three men. The court admitted the evidence on the ground that the officer did not infringe the Fourth Amendment rights of the suspects by frisking them.
The court in its decision distinguished between an investigatory stop later known as "Terry stop" and an arrest. The court also held the right of officers to frisk suspects when they have reasonable cause to believe the suspect is about to commit a violent crime. The court held that law enforcement officers could search the outer garments of the suspects and do an extensive search to retrieve evidence. The Supreme Court of the United States found the two suspects guilty a decision maintained by the appellate court (LII, 1992).
The decision in Terry v. Ohio was in contrast to that of Mapp v. Ohio where the court extended the exclusionary statute of the Fourth Amendment in the states. In Terry v. Ohio, the court upheld the right of police to conduct forcible searches and detentions without necessarily meeting the principle of probable cause required under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects United States citizens from unreasonable and unwarranted searches and seizures. The trial court in Terry V. Ohio denied the theory of the prosecution that the officer searched the suspects prior to a lawful arrest. This is because the Fourth Amendment applies to people in the street as well those in their homes. Therefore, the three suspects were protected against unreasonable seizures and searches as anyone else in the United States. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, therefore, the Detective, McFadden, could not subject the subjects the suspects to unreasonable searches without probable cause.
The trial court also denied the defense lawyer’s argument to suppress the case because the three men rights were infringed by the unreasonable search of the Detective McFadden. The issue in the case was to determine if the evidence was admissible and not the police officer’s conduct in retrieving the evidence. The trial court chose to ignore the conduct of the police officer in searching the suspect’s outer garment because of the strong probable cause. The suspects circled the same store for a while meeting in street corners in a suspicious manner. The trial court chose to accept the weapons because of the probable cause, which the officer had of searching the suspects. The court’s decision to uphold the right of the law enforcement officers to search and seize evidence with less than probable cause established under the Fourth Amendment was contrary to the decision in Mapp v. Ohio (LII, 1992).
The trial court chose not to apply the exclusionary rule in the case because it could undermine the efforts of the police to carry out investigations. Restrained and investigative police techniques were to be undermined if the exclusionary rule was applied. The Fourth Amendment excludes citizens from unreasonable and arbitrary searches. However, the exclusion could not apply to situations where the police were carrying out legitimate investigations. However, the court sought to maintain the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment as a remedy to protect the citizens from police abuse of power. Therefore, the court’s decision to approve the police techniques of stops and searches without probable cause that meets the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment was not to discourage the remedies. The trial court agreed that the exclusionary rule was not a sufficient measure to ensure protection of citizens from police abuses. However, the exclusionary rule could not apply in cases where the law enforcement officers were doing legitimate investigations for the public good.
The decision of the court set the precedent that the Fourth Amendment still applies in the cases of "stop and frisk." The Fourth Amendment protects the citizens from unreasonable and arbitrary seizures and searches. The court established that police officers had to have probable cause for the exclusionary rule not to apply. The police officers could not apply "stops and frisks" arbitrary without reasonable cause. The court defined seizure as when a police officer restrains a person and denies them the right to leave (Katz, 2005).
The law enforcement officers under the precedent set by the court decision have a right to do a body search of the persons they restrain. The officer can do an outer frame search of the persons they restrain if they reasonable believe they may be concealing weapons. The Fourth Amendment defines a search as a careful search of the outer surface of a suspect. During situations where a police officer believes, his safety is in danger they may carry out a reasonable search regardless of whether they have probable cause to arrest the individual. However, the court limited the powers to situations where the swift actions were necessary. The court upheld the need for police officers to obtain warrants in circumstances where it was sensible to do so before a seizure or search.
The officers must exercise reasonable probable cause in light of conditions to a case. The rationality of the actions of the police officer is on the scale of whether a rational person deems the actions appropriate or warranted in the circumstances. If officers are doing legitimate police investigations on suspicious characters, they can do order stops and frisks. The officer can neutralize immediate threats to bodily harm by responding appropriately to establish whether the suspect is concealing a weapon. However, searches for weapons without probable cause for arrest should be in circumstances such as when crossing borders.
The officer can make a short arrest in circumstances where they believe their lives ...