...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
...There have been a number of landmark decisions made in the U.S. Supreme Court that effect the 4th amendment. Some of the most influential cases of all time are Weeks v. United States, Mapp v. Ohio, Terry v. Ohio, Florida v. Bostick, and Schneckloth v. Bustamonte. These cases have shaped the way law enforcement must go about apprehending certain suspects. They must now be careful when it comes to searches and seizures, and making sure to have a warrant or the owners consent before doing so. Weeks v. United States was the case that created the exclusionary rule, which barred illegally obtained evidence from being used in court. The case began when police had reason to believe that Fremont Weeks was sending lottery tickets...
Words: 2188 - Pages: 9
...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 denied since under Florida law a lawyer could be provided only if the defendant was charged with a capital offense. Gideon had no choice but to represent himself and was found guilty. Gideon then filed a writ of habeas corpus, but it was denied. After forwarding his petition in 1963 The Supreme Court then agreed to review his case. Now, the Warren Court was faced with reviewing the issue of whether the state court violated Gideon’s right to a fair trial and due process of law which was protected by the Sixth and Fourteens Amendments. In a unanimous decision, the Warren...
Words: 774 - Pages: 4
...place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable suspicion must be based with specific expressed facts and not on just an officer’s intuition or guess. The Stop and Frisk law balances crime control, protects an individual’s right, and prevents from unreasonable searches. This law is further implemented and proven in the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio where it was ruled that the search performed was in fact reasonable under the constitution and the fourth amendment. Introduction The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be seized” (Lehman 2005). This amendment can be broken into 2 distinct parts: the reasonableness clause and the warrant clause, dictating that without proper reason or a warrant, which is imposed by a judicial officer, that an extensive search is unlawful. The 4th Amendment and its Boundaries In the beginning, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the established Fourth Amendment approach,...
Words: 1450 - Pages: 6
...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
...Running head: WARREN VERSUS REHNQUIST COURTS Warren versus Rehnquist Courts Michael Walker Park University Abstract The criminal justice system is greatly shaped by the civil rights safeguarded under the Bill of Rights. The court jurisprudence with regard to national security and civil liberties largely revolves around the provisions of the Bill of Rights (Baker, 2003). This paper discusses Chief Justices Earl Warren and William Rehnquist’s significant decisions and the effects they had on the balance between social order maintenance and individual liberties. Warren versus Rehnquist Courts Earl Warren held the position of Chief Justice between 1953 and 1969. He led a liberal majority, who utilized the judicial authority to consternate their conservative opponents. The Warren Court promoted the federal power, judicial power, civil liberties, and civil rights in a dramatic fashion. The Rehnquist Court, on the other hand, took a conservative approach in criminal justice (Pollak, 1979). The most significant case that the Warren Court decided with regard to civil liberties was Brown v Board of Education of Copeka, Kansas (1954). The court unanimously ruled that there is no place for the doctrine of separate but equal doctrine in the sphere of public education. The Warren Court demonstrated its value for liberalism and activism. The view of the Warren Court was that states are a hindrance in the enhancement of a just nation. In the sphere of criminal procedure and...
Words: 2153 - Pages: 9
...At the arraignment, White pleaded not guilty to the charges in the indictment. After a hearing and following a denial of her pretrial motion to suppress, White entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charges, clearly preserving the right to raise, on appeal, the matter of the trial court's denial of her suppression motion. [5] The Court sentenced White to two years in prison. The ruling was suspended, and she was placed on two years’ probation. On appeal, Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama reversed and reduced White's conviction on April 28, 1989. The Court held that a confirmed anonymous tip which involved easily known details was insufficient to validate an investigatory stop of a defendant. [6] Rehearing was denied by the appellate court on June 16, 1989. The Alabama Supreme Court denied certiorari without opinion on September 22, 1989, with two Justices dissenting. The Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court and remanded for further proceedings because when the officers stopped White, the anonymous tip from the informant had been effectively confirmed to furnish reasonable suspicion that White was involved in criminal activity. [7] The investigative stop the officers conducted did not violate White’s Fourth Amendment...
Words: 1241 - Pages: 5
...Analyzing The Fourth Amendment And Its Impact On The Safety Of Law Enforcement Officers TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. ABSTRACT 3 2. INTRODUCTION 4 3. CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE 7 4. RELEVANT COURT CASES 9 5. PROPOSED CHANGE 13 6. SOCIAL IMPACT 16 7. CONCLUSION 17 8. REFERENCES 18 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to analyze the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and its impact on law enforcement. Close attention will be paid to the ability of police officers to frisk people, vehicles and occupants of vehicles, also commonly referred to as Terry stops. Currently, the rule of law is that police officers are not able to frisk solely on the basis of officer safety and that they must have a reasonable belief that a person is armed and dangerous prior to frisking. This paper will propose a new standard police should follow. Finally, an examination will be done on the social impact of this new proposed standard. Introduction As Americans, we enjoy freedoms that many around the world do not. These freedoms make us the envy, and the enemy, of millions. The foundation for these freedoms was laid long ago by our founding fathers. After the United States won its freedom from English rule they met to establish the constitution. From several years of schooling I know that in 1789 the first United States Congress...
Words: 3844 - Pages: 16
...public safety an issue. Law officials have to make a tough decision when the correct time and place is conduct a search. The extent to which an individual is protected by the Fourth Amendment depends, in part, on the location of the search or seizure (Smith, 1999). An example is in the case of Minnesota v. Carter, when a police officer looked into a window of an apartment and observed bagging of white powder. The officer called back to the station to obtain a search warrant. In the meantime, the suspects that the police officer was watching, Carter and Johns, had left the apartment with some of the powder. The police followed them and pulled them over and searched the car and then searched the apartment. Carter and Johns were charged with controlled substance crimes. The two argued that the officer’s observation was an unreasonable search and all evidence was inadmissible as “fruit of the poisonous tree” because the evidence would not have been found in the officer’s initial search (Smith, 1999). The court decided that the protection from the Fourth Amendment did not apply because Carter and Johns were visitors from out-of-state and not social guest. The Minnesota Supreme Court changed the conviction ruling based on the right of property owners to have other people in their home to conduct other...
Words: 1521 - Pages: 7
...The Fourth Amendment: Search and Seizure Erek Anderson, Rachel Coen, Lawana Garfias, Malerie Gomez, Nicholas Tellez & Sara Ungerer CJA/364 February 16, 2015 Instructor: Bobby Kemp Search and Seizure Search and seizures are highly debated topics in the United States. Stop and frisk, automobile searches and border searches all fall within the guidelines of the Fourth Amendment. Discussed in this paper will be what reasonable searches, seizures and arrests are and how they are applied. Also to be discussed is whether probable cause is needed during warrantless searches and how the right to privacy is weighed. Finally, this paper will discuss how America’s borders are being protected by the Fourth Amendment, and what exceptions to the rule are necessary to protect America’s security interests. Stop-and-Frisk The definition of a “stop and frisk” is when the police temporarily detain a person and “pat down” their outer clothing if a law enforcement officer believes a suspect is armed and dangerous (Center for Public Education, 2015). For example, if a person is observed walking back and forth in front of jewelry store, meets another person around the corner from the store, and an officer observes one person handing the other person something which they put into their jacket. The officer can stop and frisk that suspect because they will have a reasonable suspicion that the suspects could be armed, and are possibly going to commit a crime. A frisk, by definition, is a...
Words: 2528 - Pages: 11
...The Supreme Court case I chose is the United States of America v. Raymond J. Place. The holding for this case is that a dog sniff is not a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. This case is about searching Raymond Place’s bags at the airport. Place was first suspected while he was standing in line at the airport in Miami to buy a plane ticket to go to New York’s La Guardia Airport. While Place was going to his gate, he was approached by officers and was asked for his identification. Place told the officers that they could search his luggage, but they declined due to the fact that Place’s flight was about to departure. Place’s suitcases further aroused the officers’ suspicions. The luggage tags on the suitcases had a false address. The DEA agents at LaGuardia were...
Words: 627 - Pages: 3
...Chapter 2: The Lockdown Rules of the Game Just Say No Supreme Court Sanctions Legal Misrepresentation The Fourth Amendment isn’t the only rule violated in these situations; most of the American civil liberties have been undermined due to the drug war. The Court has allowed the following: War on Drugs tactics #1: Consent Searches Started in 1960’s but rarely used until the 1970’s -primarily for hostage situations, hijackings, and prison escapes Once arrested, one's chances of ever being truly free of the system of control are slim, often to the vanishing point. Tens of thousands of poor people go to jail every year without ever talking to a lawyer. Approximately 80% of criminal defendants are indigent and thus unable to hire a lawyer. People fear police harassment, retaliation, and abuse−especially poor people of color. Those looking for an attorney often find that unless there are broken bones and no criminal record, private attorney would unlikely be interested in the case. Without significant provision over the authority when exercising police discretion, they can arrest Americans for nonviolent drug charges with relative ease. The Supreme Court lets them do it by, and I quote, “eviscerating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by the police.” Due to this, people are outright saying that there is a “virtual drug exception” in the Bill of Rights. What this means is that the Supreme Court is creating and abusing a section of the Bill of...
Words: 1795 - Pages: 8
...Racial and Ethnic Profiling in the U.S." Accessed on February 9, 2018, from https://www.aclu.org/report/persistence-racial-and-ethnic-profiling-united-states Benzine, C. 5 "Civil Rights and Liberties: 2 Crash Course Government # 23." PBS Digital studios, Retrieved on February 9, 2018, from http://www.pbs.org/video/crash-course-government-23/ Colb, S. 1 "The US Supreme Court Declares Warrantless Dog Sniffs of Private Front Porches Unconstitutional, Or Does it? A Closer Look at Florida v. 6 Jardines, April 17, 2013, Accessed from https://verdict.justia.com/2013/04/17/the-u-s-supreme-court-declares-warrantless-dog-sniffs-of-private-front-porches-unconstitutional-or-does-it Cornell Law School. 4 "Terry Stop/ Stop and Frisk." 1 Accessed on February 9, 20178, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/terry_stop_stop_and_frisk Findlaw. 7 "Are DUI Checkpoints Legal?" 8 Retrieved on February 9, 2018, from http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/are-DUI-checkpoints-legal-.html Findlaw. “Civil Rights: U.S. Supreme Court Decisions" Accessed on 9/2/18 from http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-overview/civil-rights-u-s-supreme-court-decisions.html Harriot, M. 1 "Philly Cops' 5 Habit of Fondling Black Men Sparks Greatest Protest of All Time." Kemp, D. 9 "The Warrant Requirement for GPS Tracking Devices." Verdict JUSTIA, November 4, 2013, Retrieved on February 9, 2018, from...
Words: 1342 - Pages: 6
...Authentic Case Assessment on Laws Authentic Case Assessment on Laws The Fourth Amendment The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. The law that governs arrests, searches and seizures, and issuance of warrants (arrest warrants and search warrants) is the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, above cited in toto. The Fourth Amendment is applicable only to government arrests as opposed to privately conducted ones, and in cases when the privacy of a person is intruded upon as when a search or arrest is conducted. The provision implicitly advances the exclusionary rule in criminal procedure which states to the effect that no evidence is admissible in court that was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Bacigal 2008 p.147). This rule was asserted in the landmark case of Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961) where a woman’s house was searched by police authorities, who has acted on a tip that she was hiding certain bomb suspects, without a search warrant. Finding no bomb suspect, the police instead arrested her for the lewd pictures and books found in her basement on the strength of an Ohio law which prohibited their possession. After convicted in the lower court, a conviction that was affirmed...
Words: 3450 - Pages: 14
...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
