Analysis of Terry Versus Ohio Court Case - Research Paper Example

and Introduction Cases of violence, robbery and general crime have drastically reduced in some US states, thanks to terry stops. In the US, terry stop law has been passed in twenty four states. This law states that a law enforcement officer has a right to stop a person, question them , frisk and detain them if need be, even without a search warrant, on grounds of suspicion and hunches that the person may be carrying weapons or is planning on attacking people.1 Research shows that before the Terry vs. Ohio case, which led to terry stops, in a span of seven years, 335 law enforcement officers, had been killed. In addition, there were over 23,000 assaults on law enforcement officers.2 They were being attacked and even killed by violent people. This necessitated the need for the government to protect its law enforcement officers. Ironically, this chance presented itself in form of a case, the Terry versus Ohio case. Many other cases have taken place in federal and Supreme Courts, and the Terry versus Ohio case, which took place over 40 years ago, is applied. Some people argue against the terry versus Ohio outcome. This work, therefore shall give a detailed account of what led to the arrest, who was involved, the charges, the outcome of the case and thereafter look at several issues that arise and can be seen from this case. Background The events of that case began on the afternoon of 31ST October, 1963.A law enforcement officer in his civilian dressing making his afternoon tour, spotted two men from a distance. In his testimony, the officer, Mr. Martin McFadden told the court that he spotted two men in Euclid Avenue. He took keen interest in them as he had never seen them before, not that he knew everyone in that town, but he just took keen interest in them. For him, they appeared to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. He took his time to study them and that is when he realized their questionable actions and movements.3 These two men talked briefly, and then one of them walked along the corridor, stopping for some time to look through the windows of a particular and specific store. After this, the man went back to his company, and after some time, the other man did the same thing, walked along the corridor and stopped at the same store. This further increased the curiosity of the officer. After around six times of this repeated routine, the two men were joined by another man. More talking was done and then the newly arrived man left. The law enforcement reported to the court that after this man left, the two men who were there earlier continued with their earlier suspicious routine. They did this for about fifteen minutes and then left, following the direction that the other man had taken. This further increased the curiosity of the officer, who had been watching them from a close enough distance. According to him, he suspected that they were ‘casing a job’. He followed them and found them in the company of the man who had left earlier. After all, as he said in the court, McFadden had enough experience to tell when something wrong and suspicious was cooking. In his 39 years of service, dealing with pickpockets and shop breakers, the officer had learnt to read the signs of such people.4 Officer McFadden approached them and produced his identification. He asked them what their names were, but they officer did not comprehend what they said. They mumbled incoherently. They officer had a strong suspicion that these three men were up to no good, and that is when he grabbed one of the men, Terry and spun him round. He felt a gun in Terry’s overcoat pocket, but could not reach it. He ordered the three men to enter into the nearby Zuckers store and face the wall. The officer removed Terry’s overcoat, from which he recovered a 38 caliber revolver.5 He also patted the other men’s outer clothing. He recovered a pistol from Chitton, the man with whom Terry had done the routine walks with. On the other man, Kartz, there was no weapon found. The two men were taken to the police station and were charged in court for the possession of concealed weapons. As a result, they were sentenced to the normal one to three years in the penitentiary. The decision was arrived to in accordance to Ohio Rev. Code’s number 2923 of the year 1953. It states that (n)o person shall carry a pistol, bowie knife, dirk or other weapon concealed on or about their person. However in this, exclusion is provided for the policemen and law enforcement officers. These men were found in possession of concealed weapons and hence were sentenced.6 The Appeal This decision and sentence did not auger well with Terry and Chintons’ defense team. As a result, they filed for an appeal at the Supreme Court. They argued that their rights, as per the fourteenth amendment had been violated. They also said that the search was unlawful and hence the evidence gathered did not qualify for evidence. The Supreme Court judge, Mr. Warren examined their case and affirmed to the earlier decision made. The Supreme Court said that what officer McFadden had seen was enough to raise his suspicion, and to believe that the two were planning on committing a crime, perhaps robbery. The course also said that the officer had enough reason to pat the outer clothing of the men since his life could have been endangered if they reached for their weapons. In addition, the court demonstrated the difference between a full and thorough search and the frisking, and also the difference between a stop and a normal arrest. To reinforce their decision, the Supreme Court said that there was nothing constitutionally questionable about what officer Martin McFadden had done. Also, it was said that the officer had not conducted the ‘search’ beyond what was normally acceptable. The Supreme Court affirmed and supported the earlier sentence passed.7 Questions and issues This case gave birth to traffic or terry stops and was the beginning of what others saw as safer neighborhoods. However, the events and outcome of this case raises many questions and issues, some of which will be discussed in the next section. Violation of right to privacy The fourth amendment protects people from any unlawful searches and seizures that are carried out by the police or any other law enforcement officers.8 A question arises, was Terry’s privacy invaded when officer McFadden conducted the search? It can be seen that before he even approached the men, the officer had taken his time to observe the men. He his suspicion was too much, that’s when he approached them. Some people argue that this search was uncalled for, that the police should not search people. But in this case, any other person would have done the same. The court ruled that the search was constitutional, that the officer was right in searching the people. The law states that the privacy of a person in their homes or concerning their property shall not be violated. Is this an indication that the judiciary can make laws and then go ahead to violate them? Some people feel that Terry’s privacy was violated. In addition, many people feel that when stop and frisks are carried out on them, the officers invade their privacy.9 Extent of the stop and frisk These frisk stops have however led to some bad outcome. Research shows that some people complained of violation of their rights, even in their own homes.10 For example, a couple was in their house one evening when two uniformed police officers continuously knocked on their door. Upon entry, they ordered the couple to sit together and not to say a word until when required to. They did not say what they were looking for; they just kept looking for ‘something’. The couple’s pet dog was barking so loudly and repeatedly, but the officer could not allow the woman to go to the dog, which was just near. At the end, one of the officers shot the dog dead. After sometime, they rechecked their records and realized that they were in the wrong house. Without a single word of apology, the officers left. 11 The couple said that they were never informed what was being searched for, and that her dog had been shot. Considering the couples case, were the police officers right in going all the way to the couples house? To make the matter worse, they did not say what they were looking for, and they killed her pet. This terry stop was way out of hand. It violated the fourth amendment which says that the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.12 In Michigan versus Long, Terry verses Ohio court outcome was applied. In this, two officers on their night patrol noticed a car over speeding, and finally made a stop in a ditch. The officers approached the accident scene and found David Long, whom they questioned. In the court, the two officers said that Long had difficulty in expressing himself. Long walked towards the driver’s door of his car and the officers noticed a long shiny hunting knife. This triggered them to search the car, upon which they recovered Marijuana. After the sentence, Long appealed and the Supreme Court listened to him. Long asked whether it was legal for the search to have been extended to his car. The court ruled affirmed the earlier sentence, saying that in that particular case, it was important since the knife could have indicated the presence of more weapons. The stop and frisk therefore might extend to a person’s house, their car or even their friend. 13 Law enforcers and rogues take advantage When a police officer stops you for a terry stop, they frisk you and this allowance has even been extended to a person’s car. It is argued that one can hide their weapons in a car, and use them against the officers or even to commit a crime. All this is done in an effort to combat crime, but what of those people who go through so much of these searches? Does it really have to include the houses or the cars? This allowance has given a chance to some ‘fake’ law enforcement officers to harass and rob the people. Some borrow the identification documents of their friends or relatives, and then use them to steal from people. Since in some states the terry stops are constitutionally allowed, a citizen will readily accept to be frisked. The rogue officers will take this as a chance to rob people, to harass them, which is not a provision in the constitution.14 A discriminatory law Activist Judge Scheindlin, in New York argued that this law was discriminatory, that it targeted more blacks and Hispanics than the white people. Was this a war against a particular race? The law states that all people are equal before the law, and shall be treated equally.15 But Scheindlin felt that this law was a form of discriminatory act, which she could not support.16 In some states, this law has been noted to be targeting a particular group of people. The era of racial and class discrimination is long gone, and all people should be treated equally. If the police are going to use the stop and frisk law, then it might be applied to all people equally. When a particular group of people feel that the stop and frisk law targets them, they might feel that the constitution is biased and their fear and insecurity will be greater.17 Frisks versus community policing The law enforcement officers always aim at making the community a better place. They also aim at enhancing a close and friendlier relationship between them and the citizens. This way, no one will be afraid of the other and a sense of mutual trust will be built. However, the stop and frisk at times scares away the people. They mistrust the law enforcement officers. This arises, especially when a certain group feels that it is being targeted, or feels that the police are always suspicious of them.18 Some people say that they have grown more fearful of the law enforcement officers because they have been harassed too many times. To them, the frisk does not make things better. Research carried out shows many people advocate for community policing. This is a freer and safer way of promoting coexistence and working together between the people and the police officers. Community policing has been adopted in some states and it has been seen to produce better results than frisking.19 In 2004, civil rights group in New York filed a complaint that citizens were being harassed by the law enforcement officers in the name of stop and frisk. In a bid to regulate this, the department said that they would train the police officers on the proper procedure and how to go about the search.20 In addition, the police are to fill frisk forms that will show why they had to carry out the frisk and the results of the same. However, even with these measures in place, there are still many complaints from civilians about the stop and frisk process. In relation to this, it can be said that the terry case should not have been the basis for passing such a law. The Supreme Court should have waited to see if there would be several more of the same case. If positive, then they could have considered the law, and if there were very few or none of such cases, the law would not have been passed.21 Efficiency of stop and frisk Terry frisks have increased. But how many of these frisks result to something tangible, with admissible evidence? Very few of these cases, about 1 in every 100, result into the officer’s suspicion being right.22 This raises the other question, what criterion determines who should be frisked? In the above case, the Supreme Court added that the officer had enough experience to know when something was suspicious. Not all officers who carry out these searches are experienced enough. Some will frisk you just because you are walking alone, in the pretense of suspicion. The court provided that if an officer has a reason to believe that you are carrying a weapon, he is authorized to frisk you. There is no set criterion, other than the suspicion aspect that has been provided to show what determines on who should conduct the search, why and where. In the Terry versus Ohio case, supposing after the officer carried out the frisk, he found nothing on Terry and Chilton’s outer nothing. In such a case, what is the police officer supposed to do? The suspicion was there alright, but what if there is no evidence from the frisk? The constitution should provide laws and regulations on what should happen if a frisk happens and there is no admissible evidence recovered.23 Police protection It is worth noting that the main reason why the terry stops were introduced, other than to reduce crimes is to protect the law enforcement officers. The police have a right to search and seize an individual if need be. If the police find that a person has a weapon, then they have a right to extend the search to his friends. Statistics show that in the US states that have passed the terry stop laws, the rate of crime has gone down and the number of deaths and assault on police officers has gone down. This law tries to balance the safety of the law enforcement officers and the rights of the citizens.24 Conclusion In conclusion, several aspects can be drawn from Terry versus Ohio court case. First, it shows that terry stops are constitutionally allowed, that there is nothing illegal when a law enforcement officer stops a person and questions them. However, this stop and frisk process can only extend to a search when there is plausible cause for this. For instance, when an officer sees an unusual bulge in a person’s clothing, he or she might have to conduct a frisk and stop. The officer may also conduct a search if upon the brief questioning he has reasons to believe that the individual is dangerous and may have weapons. Only then should he search, and upon recovery of any weapons, seize the person.25 Secondly, it has been seen that a frisk and stop might extend to a person’s car and property when there is reasonable suspicion that the search is important. In addition, the frisk stops are not directed to places but to people. This means that if a certain area has too much crime than other areas, the place is likely to become a target of the enforcement officers.26 The frisk and stop process is aimed at curbing crimes in the states. In the states that have made it legal, the level of crime has drastically reduced, and the number of enforcement officers being killed or assaulted has also gone down. There is need for citizens to feel safe in their neighborhoods, and the law enforcement officers are partly responsible for this safety. Stop and frisk is and can be a more efficient safety promotion method only when properly applied.27 The police do not have to take advantage of this provision to demonstrate their powers, but instead, they should do the stop and frisk only when necessary. References Alioto, N. (2009). Unreasonable Differences: The Dispute Regarding the Application of Terry Stops to Completed Misdemeanor Crimes.ST. Johns Law Review, 83(3), 945-976. Bobis, C. (1998). Terry v. Ohio 30 Years Later: A Symposium on the Fourth Amendment, Law Enforcement and Police- Citizen. New York: ST. John’s Law Review. Brandes, S. (1999). Terry V. Ohio in Hindsight: the Perils of Predicting the Past. Constitutional Commentary, 16(3), 491. Browne- Marshall, G. (2013). Race, Law and American Society. London: Routledge Kanovitz, J. (2012). Constitutional Law. Amsterdam: Elsevier Kulowiec, D. (1985). Fourth Amendment- Determining the Reasonable Length of a Terry Stop. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76(4), 1003-1026. Wallentine, K. (2007). Street Legal: A Guide to Pre-trial Criminal Procedure for Police, Prosecutors and, Defenders. New York: American Bar Association. Read More