...In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968), the court considered whether police, in the absence of probable cause, can stop, question, or frisk an individual. The case proposed that in order to stop someone for questioning, the Police must have a reasonable suspicion that the person is about to commit or has already committed a crime. If after someone has been stopped, the police want frisk a suspect for weapons, they need to have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and threatening. The Court recognized that the Fourth Amendment protects the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person. At the same time, it recognized that in certain circumstances, public safety might require a limited "seizure," or stop, of an individual against his will. The Court consequently set forth conditions circumscribing when and how the police might conduct a Terry stop. They include what has become known as the "reasonable suspicion" standard. 392 U. S., at 20-22. Justice White, in a separate concurring opinion, set forth further conditions. Justice White wrote: "Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation." Id., at 34. After Terry v. Ohio case, police officers only needed reasonable suspicion to search a person for weapons. However, the search is strictly limited to weapons. The case did not do...
Words: 1027 - Pages: 5
...Reasonable Suspicion, Plain View, and Plain Feel In Terry v. Ohio (1968) 392 U.S. 1, an officer patrolling a high crime area, known for shoplifters and pickpockets, witnessed Terry and another man walk past a store and glance inside the window twenty-four times. The suspect’s unhelpful identification led to a protective pat with the slightest intrusion of privacy. The Terry stop and frisk was constitutional based on reasonable suspicion. Terry requires specific and articulable facts in light of the officer’s training and experience, based on the totality of the circumstances and officer’s safety. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms (1977) 434 U.S. 106, an officer conducting a traffic stop asked the driver to exit the vehicle. The officer observed a large...
Words: 1666 - Pages: 7
...Defending Majority Decision of Terry v. Ohio Defending Majority Decision of Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio is a landmark supreme court case that started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland Ohio, when police officer Martin McFadden observed three men engaging in suspicious behavior. At first two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, were taking turns pacing up and down Euclid Avenue, stopping to peer into a storefront, then congregating at the street corner. Later, a third party (Katz), met the two at the corner then left abruptly after a brief conversation. Officer McFadden confronted the three men, searched their outer garments under the suspicion of criminal intent and found a pistol on Terry and a pistol on Chilton. Terry’s defense argued at trial the gun found on Terry was inadmissible as evidence. His defense states that his 4th amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizures was violated. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no “substantial constitutional question” was involved. The 4th Amendment protects U.S. citizens against arbitrary arrests. Furthermore, the 4th Amendment is the basis of the law regarding search warrants, stop-and-frisk, safety inspections, wiretaps and other forms of surveillance, as well as being central to privacy laws and many other criminal law topics. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the men were preparing to rob or steal from the stores;...
Words: 792 - Pages: 4
...Dissent of Terry v. Ohio Defending Justice Douglas’s Dissent of Terry v. Ohio Terry v. Ohio is a landmark supreme court case that started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officer Martin McFadden observed three men engaging in suspicious behavior. At first, two men, John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, were taking turns pacing up and down Euclid Avenue, stopping to peer into a storefront, then congregating at the street corner. Later, a third party (Katz), met the two at the corner then left abruptly after brief conversation. Officer McFadden then confronted the three men, searched their outer garments under the suspicion of criminal intent, and found a pistol on Terry and another on Chilton. Terry’s defense argued the gun found on Terry was inadmissible in court as evidence, stating that his 4th Amendment right to protection from unreasonable search and seizures was violated. The court denied the defendants' motion on the ground that Officer McFadden, on the basis of his experience, "had reasonable cause to believe . . . that the defendants were conducting themselves suspiciously, and some interrogation should be made of their action." Purely for his own protection, the court held, the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of these men, who he had reasonable cause to believe might be armed. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed their appeal on the ground that no “substantial constitutional question” was involved (Kemp, David. (2012). Terry v. Ohio...
Words: 1036 - Pages: 5
...My Cousin Vinny The movie “My Cousin Vinny” is a comedy film of 1992, which is an amusing interpretation of the processes of the criminal justice system. The film depicts the procedures and processes of the court and criminal justice system. There are many things that have been depicted in the movie wrongly, but some are the correct depictions of the court proceedings and the criminal justice system. Many professionals have criticized the movie for its incorrect depiction of some of the procedures and processes. The movie taps different elements of the criminal justice system as a whole. There are countless individuals who do not realize the formalities, which go into actually being convicted for a crime. My cousin Vinny explore different aspects of these pretrial stages, criminal trials and the major actors in the process of the court hearing (Crede, 2012). There are a number of similarities as well as differences amongst what the movie has portrayed and the actual process of the criminal justice procedure which will be explored in this paper. The movie revolves around two New Yorker friends, Stan and Bill, who are traveling through Rural Alabama. These two friends make a stop on their way to buy some necessities from a shop. Immediately after they leave, another car, similar to theirs, pulls over. Two men get out of the car and kill the attendant of the store and runs away. Meanwhile, the two friends, Stan, and Bill, soon realize that they have accidently taken a tuna...
Words: 1191 - Pages: 5
...carrying a gun in his left jacket pocket. Officer Bob responds to the bus stop and observes the man as described. Question 1: Can Officer Bob conduct a stop and frisk based upon the dispatched information? Explain your answer Within the framework of stop and frisk a variety of factors must be assessed. First, does the police officer have a reasonable suspicion the person is going to commit a crime. Second does the police believe the person to have something on their person that would allow them to engage in a crime. In New York for example the stop and frisk rules are a bit lighter than in most states. A police officer in New York stop someone if they believe this person is going to engage in a Penal law misdemeanor (Matthews 2013). In Florida v. J.L the court ruled that if a person is believed to be carrying a gun be it the officer was told or reasonably believes it to be so the officer therefore has a right to search. For the sake of scenario the suspect is said to be carrying a gun from anonymous tip. This dynamic alone based on precedence allows for stop and frisk. So in this scenario the police has...
Words: 738 - Pages: 3
...in a number of American courts. In accordance with English common law, without statutory provisions, a police officer has the power to stop, question, and frisk suspects given reasonable circumstances. Based on a standard which holds less than probable cause, this power is granted upon the standard of reasonable suspicion. It is a question of circumstances of each individual case that determines whether reasonable detention and investigation is validated.[7] Legislation pertaining to constitutional requirements of stop and frisk practices were made into an area of concern by the Supreme Court when they encountered the case of Terry v. Ohio. While frisks were arguably illegal, before this point a police officer could only search someone either after arresting them or obtaining a search warrant. In the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Sibron v. New York, and Peters v. New York, the Supreme Court granted limited approval in 1968 to frisks conducted by officers lacking probable cause for an arrest in order to search for weapons if the officer believes the subject to be dangerous. The Court's decision made suspicion of danger to an officer grounds for a "reasonable search".[8] Stop-and-frisk is not necessarily a new invention. In the early 1980s if a police officer had reasonable suspicion of a possible crime, he had the authority to stop someone and ask questions. If, based on the subject’s answers, the suspicion level did not escalate to probable cause for an arrest, the person would be released...
Words: 1399 - Pages: 6
...Stop and Frisk is by no means new to the United States, in fact the original term for it was “Terry Stop”. A "Terry Stop" by definition is the temporary detainment of a person by law enforcement officers based on "reasonable suspicion" that the person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio. The case started from a Cleveland police officer arresting three men based on suspicion. Patrolling the downtown area like he had been for many years, the officer spotted two strangers on a street corner. He saw them walking back and forth in front of a store window. Suspecting the two men...
Words: 778 - Pages: 4
...United States V. Sokolow 490 U.S. 1 (1989) Legal History: Respondent Andrew Sukolow was stopped by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents at his arrival at Honolulu Airport, where agents discovered 1063 grams of cocaine in his carry-on luggage. When agents stopped Sukolow, they had knowledge that he paid 2,100 for 2 plane tickets from a roll of twenty dollar bills, he had traveled under a name which didn’t match in accordance with telephone number listed, and his original intended location was Miami. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine. The United States District Court of Hawaii denied his motion to suppress the cocaine and other evidence seized from his luggage, finding that the DEA agents had a reasonable suspicion that he was involved in drug trafficking when they stopped him at the airport. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the offense charged. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed respondent's conviction by a divided vote, holding that the DEA agents did not have a reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. 831 F. 2d, at 1423. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, 486 U. S. 1042 (1988), and reversed and remanded. Facts: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents stopped respondent on July 25 upon his arriving at Honolulu International Airport around 6:30 p.m. when couple went to get a cab, Agent Kempshall and 3 other DEA agents approached the couple, displaying...
Words: 1140 - Pages: 5
...Three Important Criminal Investigation Questions Brendon L. Johnson Tarleton State University Terry v. Ohio (1968) put new rules in place when it comes to the stop and frisk. This law lets officers to be able to stop someone, as you need to only have reasonable suspicion that the person in question has or is about to commit a crime. As for the frisk the officer needs to show that it was for his own safety. For example, say a police officer is conducting a stop and frisk, during the stop and frisk he puts his hand into the suspect's pocket and finds a baggie of cocaine. First thing that the officer did wrong is that he or she put their hand in the suspect's pocket during a stop and frisk. In Criminal Law Stop and Frisk article by Allan Ashman, the office can make a quick...
Words: 1433 - Pages: 6
...kippington jones Juvenile Justice Professor jones February 11, 2014 You Are A Police Officer I chose the topic You are a Police Officer. The task at hand was to read and interpret three different scenarios. Then write about how I would react to the situation if I was the officer on the scene. I have to determine if I would have probable cause, reasonable suspicion, and whether or not I would pursue the suspect or suspects involved in the scenario. I have thoroughly read and analyzed each scenario, and have come to a decision for each situation. In Scenario one a juvenile is spotted walking near a sports warehouse building that is being watched due to it being burglarized several times over the past six months. The juvenile is wearing a heavy luxury sports coat, and also has a pair of new sneakers on. As the officer on the scene I would determine that there was not sufficient probable cause to stop and pursue the individual. There is reasonable suspicion being presented in this situation, the juvenile is wearing expensive and new sports gear that could have very well come from the sports warehouse. Although I do not believe this is enough to stop the juvenile. The farthest I would go in pursuing the individual would be to tail him looking for any suspicious activity to further pursue him. In the event his actions provided sufficient probable cause I would calmly stop the juvenile and question him on what he was doing in the area. I would make a decision to...
Words: 923 - Pages: 4
...There are six established exceptions to the fourth amendment. The first exception is the search incident to lawful arrest. It states that if someone is lawfully arrested the police can search the person and the surrounding area. The second exception to the amendment is the plain view exception, which states that if an officer see’s something in plain view that is breaking the law that can seize whatever is breaking the law and places you under arrest. Like if your growing marijuana plants in your backyard and an officer looks over your fence and see’s it he can seize the plants and put you under arrest. The third exception is consent, which is given by a person reasonably believed by an officer to have authority. So, if a suspect’s "significant other" provides police with a key to the suspect’s apartment, and police reasonably believe that she lives there. The fourth exception is stop and frisk, the evidence necessary for “reasonable suspicion” here is something beyond mere suspicion, but is less than the level required for probable cause. The fifth exception is the automotive exception. A warrant is not required to search vehicles if police have probable cause to believe the vehicle contains evidence of a crime, the instrumentalities of crime, contraband, or the fruits of a crime. The sixth and final exception is emergencies or hot pursuit. Evidence that can be easily moved, destroyed or otherwise made to disappear before a warrant can be issued may be seized without a warrant...
Words: 290 - Pages: 2
...Stop and frisk should not be legal because it isn't used improperly and it is mostly only used against colored people instead of everyone. It also breaks the 4th and 14th amendment which is really the people's right so, the government should really get rid of stop and frisk because it is doing no good to america. The reason stop and frisk exists is fine but not how they attend to use it. Stop and Frisk gives authorities the rights to search a suspicious person of their choice whenever they want. They are trying to drop crime rates. Stop and Frisk is giving officers a lot of power. There are two sides to stop and frisk but on Joe's side he talks about stop and frisk only targeting colored people from the age of 18-35(Stringer, Scott). So therefor stop and frisk is just being added to something going off of your race.. Innocent people are dying today. Innocent people are dying today. Stop and Frisk is used commonly in New York. Although most people disagree with stop and frisk the causes are still intended for the same people. The causes of stop and frisk are intended to be used on colored and is causing issues. Colored people have to be feared by going outside because they aren't white and they stand out to police officers as targets and victims. Colored people aren't treated fairly. The act that others so spreads, so if everyone is good we don't need stop and frisk. If the act of bad things lower and stop then there won't be as much trouble in communities(Stringer, Scott). If...
Words: 949 - Pages: 4
...After reviewing the facts that was looked at, I agree with the decision that the courts had made. The cases that were being viewed the police was only conducting the stop search and frisk on certain people in the community( Buettner & Glaberson,2012 ). These cases made the police that was making the stops were making the case though racial profiling. The evidence in these case showed that the police would only stop a person bases on their minority. The police have been doing this a very long time the stop and frisk started in the early 1990’s but the reason that this was started to lower crime in high crime areas of the United States (Buettner & Glaberson,2012). This is going back to the 14th amendment the police or the government can’t just enter into a person house and search it without a warrant why should they be able to do this on the public streets. The Police and any law enforcement should have a reason to search a person not just because they think a person looks suspicious (Buettner & Glaberson,2012). This might be a good thing that happens so the police and their agencies can train the officers that patrol their streets to be more proactive. If they want to practice this method still, the police agency supervisors should make the patrol officers stop an even amount of the people of the same minority(Buettner & Glaberson,2012). The stop frisk was very much out of control in the New York area it was giving the police the rights to do what they wanted to do, and...
Words: 513 - Pages: 3
...Self Assessment Self Assessment: Search and Seizure Introduction Question 1 The rules of criminal procedure are derived primarily from: Question 1 options: a) the Fourth Amendment b) the Constitution c) the Fourteenth Amendment d) the Bill of Rights Question 2 Core due process rights include: Question 2 options: a) right to jury trial b) exclusion of unlawfully obtained evidence c) state must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt d) all of the above Question 3 The Fourth Amendment concerns: Question 3 options: a) confessions b) right to jury trial c) search and seizure d) due process Question 4 The Fifth Amendment concerns: Question 4 options: a) self-incrimination b) search and seizure c) photographic evidence d) cruel and unusual punishment Question 5 A defendant's right to counsel is derived from: Question 5 options: a) the Fourth Amendment b) the Fifth Amendment c) the Sixth Amendment d) the Fourteenth Amendment Applicability of the Fourth Amendment Question 6 A mother finds cocaine in her child's bedroom and calls the police. The evidence will not be suppressed because: Question 6 options: a) the child does not have standing b) there is no state action c) mothers are supposed to snoop d) it is considered abandoned Question...
Words: 1619 - Pages: 7
