On October 31, 1963, about 2:30 pm the Plaintiff was observed by Officer McFadden talking with two other gentlemen who looked suspicious. They were walking up and down the
Sidewalk and looking in a store window. The officer with his 30 years of experience in that area had probable cause that a potential robbery was going to take place. He approached the suspects for questioning and decided to search them.
Prior Proceeding: This case was heard in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Plaintiff was found guilty and sentenced to one to three years in prison. The Plaintiff filed an appeal.
Issues presented or questions of law:
(1) Whether the Plaintiff Fourth Amendment rights were violated.
(2) Whether an illegal search was conducted by the police officer …show more content…
Defendant: The Defendant believes that the Fourth Amendment gives officer McFadden the right to stop and frisk suspects for his own protection when he suspects a criminal activity is about to take place.
Holding/rule of Law:
(1) According to the Fourth Amendment, a person has rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere.
(2) When officer McFadden stops Terry, he restrains his freedom to walk away; he has "seized" him. This was within his rights to question the suspects, but he cannot stop and frisk them on a hunch because he did not have probable cause they had a weapon on them was outside the Fourth Amendment.
Rationale:
The court decision to allow the search and find it reasonable is questionable. It can give the police officer a green light to search people with a hunch, instead of probable