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
Words: 1433 - Pages: 6
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
Words: 1140 - Pages: 5
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
Words: 1399 - Pages: 6
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
Words: 778 - Pages: 4
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
Words: 1027 - Pages: 5
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)
Words: 792 - Pages: 4
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
Words: 1619 - Pages: 7
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
Words: 1666 - Pages: 7
Gideon v. Wainwright The Warren Court also reviewed the case of Gideon v. Wainwright which was a case that changed the history of criminal procedure. Clarence Earl Gideon was a man who believed that he deserved to have his voice heard after being denied a right to counsel when he was arrested for petty larceny and breaking into a poolroom in Panama City, Florida in June 1961. At trail Gideon ask for a lawyer to defend his case since he could not afford one himself. Unfortunately, his request was
Words: 774 - Pages: 4
My supreme court case is the case of Minnesota vs Dickerson. On the night of November 9th, 1989, two officers of the Minneapolis police department were patrolling the streets of north Minneapolis. At around 8:15 p.m, the two officers spotted a male coming out of a 12 unit apartment complex notoriously known for crack/cocaine sales and trafficking. Considering the suspect’s suspicious behavior, by purposely evading the police and turning around and going the opposite direction, into an alley behind
Words: 531 - Pages: 3
