Terry v. Ohio: A Stop-and-Frisk Landmark Case

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Facts
Issue
Holding
Rationale

Facts

Police Detective Martin McFadden was patrolling streets in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland when two men, Chilton and Terry, caught his attention. McFadden, who had been a policeman for 39 years, thought that there was something suspicious about them and stopped to observe their actions as another man, Katz, joined them. McFadden approached the group, identified himself, and asked several questions. Not having received any satisfying answers, he started to pat down the men, eventually finding guns on Chilton and Terry. He stated that he put his hands beneath Chilton and Terry’s outer garments only upon feeling the weapons. The men were charged for carrying concealed weapons. During the trial, Terry’s lawyer argued that the “stop-and-frisk” conducted by McFadden involved “search and seizure” and, therefore, violated the Fourth Amendment. The Ohio Distinct Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Fourth Amendment did not directly regulate the case. The defendants then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Issue

Whether the Ohio Distinct Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Ohio properly dismissed the defendants appeal that the search conducted by McFadden violated the Fourth Amendment.

Holding

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court of Ohio, holding that “stop-and-frisk” conducted by McFadden did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Rationale

The Supreme Court agreed with the defendants’ position that the “stop-and-frisk” conducted by McFadden fallen into the category of “search and seizure”, thus, being regulated by the Fourth Amendment. Reaffirming the ruling for Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89 (1964), the Supreme Court emphasized that “whenever practicable”, the police should obtain “advance approval” (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). Referring to Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949), the court followed to claim that in the cases when no advance warrant procedure is feasible, courts must identify whether the search and seizure were conducted on reasonable grounds evaluating the circumstances that lead the police officer to stop the suspect. The court held that to prevent a crime, an officer can approach a person “in an appropriate manner” even if there was no reason for an arrest (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)). Applying this rule to the Terry v. Ohio case, the court confirmed that the defendants’ behavior required further investigation. McFadden, who had been a police officer for almost 40 years, had enough experience to judge the situation appropriately and was able to explain what caused his suspicion.

Moreover, the court relied on the notion that, while stopping the suspects, police officers should ensure their own safety. The court found that, based on the observed behavior, McFadden had the right to suspect that the men he approached were armed. The court rejected the case that seemed to rule the other way, Sibron v. New York, 392 US 40 (1968), referring to the fact that in Sibron v. New York, the officer’s actions could not be ruled as self-defense since he himself claimed that he had no reasons to suspect the concealment. The court emphasized that McFadden conducted only minimal necessary putting down, not placing hands under the suspects’ outer garments until he felt the gun. On these grounds, the court ruled that the search conducted by McFadden was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. This ruling is controversial if viewed through the lenses of public policy principles since it approves the limited intrusion upon personal security but is aimed at ensuring public safety.

Click Here To Order Now!

Terry v. Ohio: A Stop-and-Frisk Landmark Case

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)