Supreme Court: TERRY vs OHIO - Essay Example

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S 1968) Summary In Terry v. Ohio case the petitioner Mr. John Terry had been charged together with an accomplice for carrying a concealed weapon after they were arrested by a detective officer, McFadden who was carrying out his routine patrol when he spotted them walking up and down a street while casing into a storefront about 24 times. He decided to approach them because he felt they intended holding up a store; after which he identified himself as a detective officer and then proceeded to ask them their names, which they mumbled in response. He then turned the petitioner around and frisked him after which he felt a gun in the outer pocket of the petitioner, but he couldn’t remove it. He then ordered them all into the store and asked the clerk for the store to call a patrol a wagon as he frisked the other two men for any weapon. He recovered another revolver from one of a colleagues and nothing on the third. The two men were then arrested and charged with carrying hidden weapons, an action the officer felt that it jeopardized his safety and that of others (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Brief Fact Summary The petitioner Mr. John Terry was ordered to stop and consequently searched by a police detective who was on his routine patrol after he noticed the petitioner casing a store planning a potential robbery. He then approached him for questioning after e searching him first (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Synopsis of the Law An officer of the government can perform a search for any concealed weapons without a search warrant or even a probable cause if he/she reasonably believes that the subject may be dangerous or armed. Facts The detective noticed the petitioner conversing with a colleague on a street corner as they repeatedly walked up and down the same street as they periodically peered into a store front window as they conversed more. The petitioner and the accomplice often also talked to a third colleague as they followed him up the same street. Therefore, the detective felt that the three men were planning a potential robbery and thus, he decided to approach them for questioning after which he decided to frisk them. The detective recovered a concealed revolvers from the petitioner and one of his colleagues for which they were charged (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Issues The issue in the case was whether a search by an officer (s) for weapons for arrest without a probable cause should be considered an unreasonable search under the United States Fourth Amendment of the constitution (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Moreover, another issue is the admissibility/acceptability of the evidence recovered by the detective during the search and seizure. Ruling The Supreme Court ruled that it’s a reasonable search if a police officer carries out a limited search and seizure for weapons on an individual if the officer/detective reasonably believes that the person could be armed. Moreover, the court argued that, it could be unduly burdening to a typical beat officer if he/she is restrained from searching persons that he/she unduly believes could be armed (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Dissent and Concurrence However, J. Douglas dissented the majority’s ruling that the holding would give detectives and other officers the powers authorizing a search and seizure that could be extreme that even a magistrate wouldn’t possess. However, J. Harlan agreed with the majority’s ruling but emphasized the necessity of reasonableness for officer to stop persons for questioning. In addition, J. White too agreed with the holding but also emphasized the need to consider the inherent facts of the case; that is there is suspicion of an action of violence being committed to justify a forcible stop and frisk (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). . Conclusion The facts inherent in the case are critical to the understanding of the U.S Supreme Courts willingness allowing officers to perform a search. The suspicious activity, as was noted by the detective, was an armed robbery hence, a crime. Moreover, if the detective’s suspicions were right then he was in a dangerous position approaching the petitioner and his colleagues for questioning without first frisking them. In addition, the detective also didn’t detain the accused of a long time to amount an arresting without a probable cause (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Examination The issue whether the Fourth Amendment Rights was violated/infringed upon or not before the court. In my opinion I think the petitioner, his colleagues or the detective didn’tviolate the Fourth Amendment of the U.S constitution. The detective acted reasonably to search the petitioner and his accomplices because of the suspicions they raised about their intended actions he witnessed. Moreover, given that the detective was a veteran who had performed his routine patrol for a period of over thirty years, I believe, he had sufficient knowledge and experience to recognize potential criminal activity behaviors to warrant him taking action. For instance, when he watched one of the men walk up and down the street while peering into the store before meeting another man at a corner for a talk; who also took the same walk and peered into the same store, I believe it was justifiable for him to be suspicious of their intended actions. Therefore, because the behaviors of the men was out of order, his action of frisking them for concealed weapons was for the safety of the others around him and himself because he finally recovered two concealed revolvers from the petitioner and his accomplices, which could have been use against him if the accused wanted to escape from a potential arrest (Law.cornell.edu, n.d.). Thus, it is justifiable for officers to conduct a limited search on persons whom they reasonably suspect can be dangerous for reason of recovering any concealed weapons in their possession, which they can use assaulting them or anybody near them, even without a probable cause for arrest. Moreover, such weapons recovered from such individuals can be admissible before the court as evidence for pressing charges. Two Part Test Provided By the Court in Terry The court ruled that the detective was right for his actions since his actions were necessary to prevent what the petitioner and the colleagues intended to do to help maintain the peace of the street. Thus, given that the court did discuss and review the facts surrounding the case before considering whether the detective’s actions were warranted, is sufficient proof that the officer’s actions were necessary from inception. Moreover, given that the detective was a veteran officer with over thirty years’ experience in the job lieu of a younger officer, the court it was justifiable for the court not questioning his ultimate decision given the breadth of knowledge and experience the officer possessed (Law.cornell.edu, n.d.). In addition, given that the detective never searched beneath the petitioner’s clothing but only patted the outside of their clothing, he thus, never violated their Fourth Amendment Rights. Conversely, the justices stated that if the petitioner and his colleagues were only wandering then, the detective’s actions would have been unjustifiable and would have violated the Fourth Amendment Rights. Notwithstanding, the interception of the detective is justifiable and reasonably associated to the scope of the circumstances surrounding the case. As already mentioned above, the McFadden was a veteran detective with a long experience in detecting crime behavior. Therefore, after observing the behavior of the men for about 24 times as they walked up and down the street while casing into the storefront, it was justifiable for him to approach them for questioning because he was reasonably suspicious of their actions; staging a daylight potential robbery. Thus, given that the court did discuss and review the facts surrounding the case before considering whether the detective’s actions were warranted is sufficient proof that the officer’s actions were necessary from inception thus, not contradicting the scope of the search conducted by the detective as outlined in the Fourth Amendment Rights (he only patted them down their outer clothing and never placed his hands in their pockets) (Law.cornell.edu, n.d.). However, in my opinion I think these tests do not give officer too much discretion determining when to stop and frisk an individual because the officer are only entitled searching suspects if they are reasonably suspicious of the actions of the suspects for their own safety and the interests of those surround them. Moreover, the search is limited in scope and restricted to a search for weapons, which can be use against the law enforcers or those persons around him/her. Further, given that officers can only conduct a pat down for the purpose of recovering a concealed weapon to find a ground for conducting a full search, I think on a person guarantees them no much power. Therefore, given that the search can only be conducted within some set confines of suspicion, I believe thus, that the tests do not leave officers with too much discretion for conducting searches and seizures (Law.cornell.edu, n.d.). Origins and Importance of Probable Cause Dissent J. Douglas dissented the majority’s ruling that the holding would give detectives and other officers the powers authorizing a search and seizure that could be extreme that even a magistrate wouldn’t possess unless there is probable cause warranting the stop and frisk. The ‘Probable Cause’ requirement has its origin in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S constitution that states that, "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 searched." Therefore, from this requirement the Supreme Court recognized that the U.S constitution’s Fourth Amendment safeguards the right of individuals to the control and possession of his own person but while at the same it recognized that in certain circumstances the publics safety is imperative and might demand a limited forcible stop and seizure. Consequently, the Court set conditions describing when & how officers can perform a Terry stop; hence gave to what came to be called the standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’ (Law.cornell.edu, n.d.). Therefore, from the facts underlying the requirement for probable cause, it is evident that the demand that an officer should have reasonable suspicion; both circumstances and facts within his knowledge that the subject under question has committed, is about to commit or is committing a crime helps set a limit for the law enforcement officers by stipulating the circumstances under which they can or cannot take action. Moreover, this precedent helps: reduce the risk that faces police officers; helps expand the officers’ investigation tool and allows items recovered during the officers’ search to admissible in court as evidence. Examination of the Courts Holding in Terry Provision for Probable Cause From the holding of the case Terry v. Ohio, the court’s decision to allow for the totality of circumstances like the specialized knowledge of the law enforcement officers, personal observations of suspicious behavior, investigative inferences & information from other sources as the basis for determining probable cause is justifiable and not more subjective in my opinion because the standard of reasonableness is based on that of a reasonable person’s caution. Therefore, this implies that an officer cannot stop and frisk and individual if he has no reasonable suspicion that the subject under question has committed, is about committing or is committing a crime if, for instance, the officer has not determined the individual’s behavior is out of order from the normal behavior as was noted in the case of Terry v. Ohio, when the detective observed the behavior of the men for about 24 times as they walked up and down the street while casing into the storefront as they talked more and more (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Moreover, given that the experience and knowledge of an officer is imperative in determining reasonable suspicion to evoke probable cause as was held in the case of Terry v. Ohio, when the Court had to rely on the veteran officer’s experience in performing his routine patrols, is enough proof that the courts will admit evidence obtained from stop and frisks in totality based on the circumstances surrounding the search and seizure. Thus, it is justifiable saying that the totality of the circumstances warranting a stop and seizure can be presumed to be less subjective because the Court will have to rely on the validity of such circumstances e.g. was the officer a veteran or younger officer with little experience among others (Law.cornell.edu, n.d.). Validity of the Courts Holding On Police Officer Accosting Individuals and Restrains of Freedom in the Context of the Fourth Amendment I think the Court’s decision to validate a seizure to amount to a police officer accosting and restraining an individual’s freedom of walking away is invalid within the confines of the Fourth Amendment. For action to amount to a seizure, two elements must be present according to the Fourth Amendment: (1) an officer must demonstrate authority e.g. through the presence of a weapon or handcuffs; use forceful language or make physical contact. (2) The individual being seized must give in to the authority and thus, if a person walks away from the officer, he has not been seized (Law.cornell.edu, n.d.). Therefore, a mere accost and restraint of freedom within the realms of the Fourth Amendment is invalid and does not constitute a seizure. Moreover, from the case of Terry v. Ohio, a Terry stop with reasonable suspicion is admissible within the Court if an officer acts in the interest of the public and himself to stop a crime. Therefore, given all these facts and circumstances, a mere accost and restrain by an officer in my opinion is invalid within the confines of the Fourth Amendment. References Law.cornell.edu. (n.d.). Supreme Court: TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/392/1 TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1 Read More