Free

Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio - Case Study Example

Comments (0) Cite this document
Summary
When a court is faced with a case deemed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and State law through search and seizure by police of individuals,when deciding whether they crossed the federal constitutional line;the United States Supreme Court…
Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER95.3% of users find it useful
Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio Case
Read TextPreview

Extract of sample "Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio"

Wolf V. Colorado And Terry V. Ohio Case Wolf V. Colorado, 388 U.S. 25 When a court is faced with a case deemed as a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and State law through search and seizure by police of individuals,when deciding whether they crossed the federal constitutional line;the United States Supreme Court takes into consideration state search and seizure practices at the time of the Fourth Amendment’s enactment and current state practices.In this regard when interpreting the Fourth Amendment,the court in defining the scope of Federal protection both trusts and mistrusts modern state policing policies,sometimes declaring them unconstitutional while other times oddly using them as a definitive source in the scope of Federal protection (Schulhofer,2012).
Fact.Thus the doctrine of incorporation is when a court selectively and extensively incorporates the Bill of Rights by its construction of the Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,by so declaring that federal procedural safeguards applies to state’s criminal proceedings.
Issue.In wolf,the Court applied the Fourth Amendment to the states,as opposed to the federal exclusionary rule in which case barring the government from using illegally seized evidence in its case in chief to prove guilt. The issues in this case involved incorporation of the Fourth Amendment and the lack of the need for a rule of exclusion.
Reasoning.The decision of the Court in Wolf and Colorado in 1949 held that the Fourth Amendment applied to the states, and the exclusionary rule did not. By declaring that the Fourth Amendment applied to the states,relied on the incorporation standard articulated in Palko V. Connecticut,a standard likewise cited in the modern Court to decide whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects a newly asserted liberty (Schulhofer,2012).
Case significance.The Wolf’s Court strongly defined the Fourth Amendment’s fundamentals as protecting a person’s “privacy against intrusion by police,” a basic right of free society.Unanimously it held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Fourth Amendment.
Reference
Schulhofer, S. J. (2012). More essential than ever: The Fourth Amendment in the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press.
Terry V. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
Brief Case Summary.The Petitioner,John W. Terry was stopped by a police officer after the officer observed that the petitioner was ‘ causing’ a store for potential robbery. The petitioner was approached by the officer for questioning and the officer decided to search him first.Acceptably according to the rule of law; a police officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant,without a probable cause when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be armed and dangerous (Atkin,2013).
Facts. The officer noticed the petitioner talking to another person in a suspicious manner on a corner of the street while peering periodically in a store window. The men also spoke to a third man.The officer upon approaching, questioning and searching the petitioner,a concealed weapon was produced thus leading to charges of carrying a concealed weapon.
Issue.Is the search by an officer for a weapon without a probable cause for arrest an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution?
Holding.The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures,brought into force to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment,protects “people” not “places”,and as such applies as much to citizens on the streets in as much as home or elsewhere (Atkin,2013).
Reasoning. Moreover, where a reasonably prudent officer of the law is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of the public is threatened,the officer may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous.
Case significance.Under normal circumstances,the officer had no probable cause to arrest terry for anything.However, he had made subtely observations that reasonably led his trained and prudent police mind to suspect that Terry was about to commit robbery or burglary. His justifiable suspicion made a proper constitutional ground for accosting Terry,briefly restraining his liberty of movement and questioning him.
Reference
Atkin, M. L. (2013). Balancing Liberty and Security: An Ethical Study of U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, 2001-2009. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1661981-wolf-v-colorado-terry-v-ohio-case
(Wolf V. Colorado & Terry V. Ohio Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 Words)
https://studentshare.org/law/1661981-wolf-v-colorado-terry-v-ohio-case.
“Wolf V. Colorado & Terry V. Ohio Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1661981-wolf-v-colorado-terry-v-ohio-case.
  • Cited: 0 times
Comments (0)
Click to create a comment or rate a document

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio Case

Case Brief : Terry v. Ohio

...? Case Brief: Terry v. Ohio of the of the For many years now, Police in the United s have engaged in investigative practices which are commonly known as ‘Stop and Frisk’. This process normally involves the stopping of a person or vehicle with the purpose of interrogation or a brief investigation. This process is sometimes accompanied by a ‘pat down’ search of the outer clothing or apparel of the suspect, done with a view to ensure that the person is unarmed. While this mechanism is common place in today’s high risk world, its validity juxtaposed to the Fourth Amendment was examined by the Hon’ble United States Supreme Court in the case of...
4 Pages(1000 words)Case Study

Legal Case Briefs x 3 ( Terry v. Ohio, Katz v. United States, Tennessee v Garner)

...due Case Briefs CASE TERRY V OHIO. CITATION: 392 U.S 1968) FACTS Mr Mc Fadden, a Cleveland detective on duty observed two unknown men Terry and Chilton on a street corner. He noticed that the two men were observing a store window which they walked past roughly 24 times with the two men meeting on completion of each walk. They were joined by another man, Kartz, who left the two abruptly. Mc Fadden became suspicious and decided to follow them. The two men linked up with Kartz at a different store (Zucker’s). Mr Mc Fadden approached them, identified himself and subsequently enquired about their names. The three men were incoherent in their...
4 Pages(1000 words)Essay

Terry v. Ohio Case Brief

...?Terry v. Ohio Case Brief The short of Terry v. Ohio can be explained as the U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the 4th amendment prohibition pertaining to unreasonable search and seizures. The decision of the court states that the 4th Amendment right is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect in the street and proceeds to frisk him even though there is no visible probably cause to arrest the person. Rather, the act of the police officer is done upon his or her suspicion that a crime may be undertaken because of a sense or reasonable belief that the person in question may be armed and presently dangerous....
3 Pages(750 words)Case Study

Terry V Ohio case

... 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...
8 Pages(2000 words)Case Study

Mapp v. Ohio case: exclusionary rule

...seized it and secured it on her person. Consequently a struggle ensued and she was handcuffed and forcibly taken to different rooms in the house where searches were carried out by the officers. Obscene materials were found in a trunk located in the basement of the building. What is the constitutional basis for the Courts ruling? Mapp appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States after her appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio was denied. The decision was done in her favor. Under constitutional law the Exclusionary Rule was brought into effect in this case. This rule which stems from the Fifth Amendment states that no object may be used in court if obtained illegally or without a proper search...
2 Pages(500 words)Essay

Mapp v. Ohio

...Mapp versus Ohio Introduction Mapp versus Ohio was the criminal case during which the United s Supreme Court put into law that evidence obtainedin violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be used in state or federal courts (Stephens, 2006). Therefore, the only evidence that would be deemed appropriate and therefore usable had to have been obtained while adhering to the Fourth Amendment. This also means that the search cannot be undergone without the proper permission of authorities; no public servant can force their way into a home without the appropriate search warrant (Hubbart, 2005). Background In 1957, it was believed by the Cleveland Police Department that Dollree Mapp and her...
4 Pages(1000 words)Research Paper

Terry v. Ohio

...Stop and an Arrest Stop and an Arrest In Terry v. Ohio, court laid down the rules in order to distinguish between a stop and an arrest. Even though there are confusions and issues, the following four factors lead to clear distinction between a stop and an arrest: Duration If the investigation is for a very short period of time, then it is considered to be a stop. A short duration would mean that the offices takes enough time to address basic questions such as name, personal details, address, personal identification proof, etc. If the investigation takes longer time than that is needed to address basic questions, then it is considered an arrest (Worrall & Hemmens, 2005). Purpose The...
1 Pages(250 words)Essay

Terry v Ohio Stop Question Frisk

.... In such circumstances, police officers may conduct a reasonable search of the individual for weapons. This investigatory power exists independent of whether or not there is probable cause for affecting an arrest or whether or not the officers in question are entirely sure that the person is actually armed and dangerous (Terry v Ohio 1968). The US Supreme Court defined the circumstances in which a stop, question and frisk would not exceed the boundaries of the Fourth Amendment. First, while warrants for search and seizure are the preferred way, there are times where police officers must act quickly and in such a case a stop and frisk may be appropriate. Secondly,...
2 Pages(500 words)Essay

Mapp v. Ohio court case

...Mapp v. Ohio court case First Mapp v. Ohio court case In May, 1957, while in the of investigating a bombing that happened at a Cleveland home of Don King, three police officers visited the home of Doltree Mapp, who after calling her lawyers, asked that they produce a warrant which they did not have at the time of the first visit. They came back letter brandishing a document which they purported to be a warrant and, after manhandling Ms. Mapp they searched her house but found nothing relatedto the bombing. Instead they found some pornographic books and sketches. Despite her protestations that the materials did not belong to her but were...
2 Pages(500 words)Assignment

Mapp V. Ohio

...Mapp v. Ohio of the Law of the Concerned September 3, Mapp v. Ohio There is no denying the fact that Mapp v. Ohio tends to be a landmark Supreme Court case that influenced the inclusion and acceptance of evidence in the State Courts. On May 23, 1957, the Cleveland Police believing that Dollree Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, tried to search her home without soliciting a search warrant. To begin with, Mapp was able to resist the entry of the officers in her premises. However, later on the Police managed to force its way into Mapp’s premises, again without a valid search warrant. Though the police failed to find the...
1 Pages(250 words)Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Let us find you another Case Study on topic Wolf v. Colorado & Terry v. Ohio Case for FREE!

Contact Us