Terry V Ohio - Case Study Example

 Terry V Ohio case 125 The Terry V Ohio case was brought to the United s Supreme Court in which they decided that unreasonable searches and seizures were not against the Fourth Amendment when this act was carried out by a police officer who felt it his responsibility to stop and check a suspicious individual: whether they have, will or had committed a crime. Terry V Ohio The Terry V Ohio case took place when a police officer stopped and checked three men because of their suspicious behavior. Occurring on October 31st 1963 when an experienced and old member of the Cleveland Police Department, Martin Macfadden, went patrolling downtown and saw two individuals acting suspiciously. The detective observed John Terry and Richard Chilton standing on a street corner. They were seen walking back and forth alternately using the same route and stopping to stare at a store in the street. This was done five or six times by each individual leading to a walk up and down the street about twelve times. Each time this walk was over they would pause and talk to each other. During one of these trips in front of the store, a third man joined the two and spoke to them for a brief period before leaving. Identified as Katz, the detective felt this was a set-up for holding up the store, especially when all three individuals rejoined a few blocks away from the store. McFadden then went up to the three men and asked them their names. They were unable to give an answer which created further suspicion in the officer’s mind. The officer quickly reached out to pat the clothes of one of these men during which he came upon a gun in Terry’s overcoat pocket. Reaching inside to remove the gun, McFadden was unable to grasp it and take it out. Thus, he asked Terry to remove the coat itself. This allowed him to take out the revolver. Ordering the men to face the wall with their arms raised the officer was able to check the clothing of the other two men: Katz and Chilton. Chilton too was found carrying a gun. During the pat-down the officer had not been able to find anything on Katz which is why the outer garments of this individual were not checked. Terry and Chilton had been given the same pat-down but upon discovering the weapons, the officer put his hands under their garments to remove the guns. Taking the three men with him to the police station, they were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The defendants of these three individuals then used the seizure and search of the weapons as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. This amendment is part of the Bill of Rights in the United States constitution and protects individuals from irrational seizures and searches. According to this amendment a search warrant has to present to the individual before they can be checked otherwise it will be abusing the law. This warrant also has to be presented by a court that must be given proper reason for its issuing. The importance of this warrant is such that anyone who disobeys it or gives it for an unreasonable cause will also be held accountable in court Thus, under this view the defendants presented their clients as being wrongfully abused by the law. Chief Justice Warren presided over this case and began with the principles established in the Fourth Amendment. The first was that the Fourth Amendment was responsible for protecting people, rather than places and thus gave as much protection to the citizen on the street as to the one at home (Legal Information Institute). Thus, the Court now had to decide whether it was illegal for the officer to check these men without warrant. The problem that arose was the idea of stop and frisk which had occasionally been used by police officers to check suspicious individuals. The problem was that giving the officers so much power without a legal justification could lead to violation of personal security and abuse of authority. The police officers felt that this move was necessary to prevent situations could become dangerous and this stop and frisk would protect not only them but also fellow citizens from potentially threatening situations. The Court did not question the idea of stop and frisk but the problems that could accompany it. This included the misconduct that policemen could carry out during these checks. Minority groups were seen as a probable target it the police community was given wider powers over searches. However, the argument still remained that by not allowing this law to incur injury and frustration would continue like always. Thus, the idea that gained importance was when a person could be caught and searched. It was believed that the fourth amendment would be violated if the officers did not carry out a traditional arrest. This meant that preventing an individual from walking away and restraining his freedom could indeed be considered a seizure. Just as checking the outer garments thoroughly could be seen as a search. Under this light Terry was seized and searched by the police officer. However, the Court did consider the search carried out on the three individuals as reasonable. The officer would have needed proof before he embarked on the need to issue a search warrant. Thus, the need to search these individuals was vital. The facts that had to be considered were: whether the society was unsafe, whether the reigning officer himself was being put into danger, whether this was a personal intrusion in the individual’s life and the extent to which this search could be carried out. Yet, searches that were carried out with the best of intentions could violate the fourth amendment by their intensity and scope. This made it vital for the police officers to present a scope which can be justified to search an individual. It was decided by the court that the individuals were in fact guilty. The search of Terry was reasonable. Terry and his cohorts’ actions were such that they induced the officer to act accordingly. Their behavior was such that the detective assumed them to be involved in a stick-up which meant that they had to be armed. The court allowed the weapons to be presented as evidence but rejected the idea that a lawful arrest had been carried out. Terry and Chilton had been seen acting suspiciously which made their interrogation and search a warranted move. Thus, both individuals were found guilty by the intermediate appellate court. . This move by the court to understand stop and frisk by law enforcement agencies was condoned by members of the judicial system. Justice White saw it as the right decision but also added that there was nothing in the Constitution that prevented policemen from checking ordinary individuals on the street. These individuals had the right to refuse cooperation which might not lead to an arrest but could lead them policemen to continue their observation of this person. However, there were many who criticized this decision. Judge Douglas saw it as an act that reduced the power given to the judges. The officers were allowed to stop and search without needed the approval of a judge thus allowing them to have a greater authority then the ones responsible for authorizing such action. According to the Ohio V Terry case the validity of the stop and frisk practice was not removed. The Court admitted that officer McFadden did not have enough cause to conduct a full search. These actions were committed in bright daylight which added to the officer’s hypothesis that the three men were going to commit an armed robbery. This Court also established that the search carried out by McFadden had been very minimal and only to ascertain whether the three men had any arms. Thus, the search for weapons had been justified in the circumstances, establishing the need for a situation to be necessary for the officers to carry out their behavior. Yet, the weapon found on the defendant was viable proof that the officer had enough grounds to believe Terry to be dangerous. Thus, the officer was allowed to make enquiries if they felt the suspect was armed and could carry out a criminal activity. Terry V Ohio set the precedent for various other cases. Amongst them is Michigan V Long. In this case David Long was questioned by police officers after he drove his car into a ditch. Believing him to be under the influence of something, police officers checked his car and found a hunting knife on the floor of the car. Taking into consideration his erratic behavior they carried out a search onto the whole car including a pat-down as had been established by the Terry V Ohio case. Finding a great quantity of marijuana in his car. Long was arrested for drug possession. In his trial Long felt that the drugs should not be presented as evidence as the search carried out in his car had been unconstitutional. The Michigan Supreme Court allowed this as a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment: allowing the drugs to be removed as evidence. This court case allowed law enforcement agencies to stop and check cars if they held reasonable suspicion. This extended the decision made in Terry V Ohio. Hilbel V Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada was another case brought into Court that remained pertinence from the Terry V Ohio case. Nevada has a law that allows officers to stop and identify individuals. Under these circumstances the police can check an individual if they feel them to be responsible for or going to commit a crime. In 2000, an officer got a report telling him that a man had assaulted a woman in a truck. Finding this truck, the officer saw a couple sitting inside it and noticed skid marks which meant the truck had commit to a sudden halt. Explaining to the man his suspicions the officer began to question him. Asking for cooperation the officer said that the individual would be arrested if he refused to provide identification. This search and identify law expected suspected individuals to give a full account of themselves. If unable to do so the officers had the power to arrest and detain these suspicious people. This case allowed investigation to be carried out as had been done in the Terry V Ohio case. In this case, the police officers were expected to create minimal intrusion into an individual’s privacy by asking questions that would dispel suspicion. If the individual is expected to be part of some criminal activity they are to identify themselves which is a justified behavior that can be conducted by police officers. The last case considered to be related to the Terry V Ohio case is the Miranda V Arizona case. In this case Miranda was arrested for robbery and confessed to have had raped an 18 year old girl two days before the crime. This confession was provided with evidence along with Miranda’s victim’s identification of her rapist. The idea here was that a suspect could be held accountable for the statements they made during an interrogation. However, this would only come into effect when the individual has been made aware of their rights to remain silent and consult an attorney before being questioned. Only after the defendant has properly understood these rights and waived them are the statements made by the defendant during police custody admitted as evidence at the trial. Thus, in this case the Terry V Ohio case played a role in defining the limits available to police officers in their interrogation of a suspect. Not only could they not force the suspect to state anything without his approval but were also not allowed to show these at the trial without the defendant’s approval. Thus the Terry V Ohio case set precedent for many court cases that followed. It was responsible for defining and explaining the power allowed to the law enforcement agencies without them violating their rights. By stating specific details like the instances in which stop and frisk could be allowed, Terry V Ohio ensured that the authority given to police officers did not demean any individual’s privacy while at the same time ensuring that the safety of the people was kept intact. Thus the new law followed the Constitution and Bill of Rights set by their American ancestors: to protect the citizens and their rights. Bibliography Legal Information Institute, Hilbel V Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, Available at Cornell University Law School, Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5554.ZS.html [July 26 2009] Legal Information Institute, Terry V Ohio, Cornell University Law School, Available: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html [July 26 2009] Michigan V Long, FindLaw for Legal Professionals, Available at: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=463&page=1032 [July 26 2009] Miranda V Arizona, Findlaw for Legal Professionals, Available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=384&invol=436 [July 26 2009] Read More