Terry vs Ohio in the US Supreme Court - Essay Example

Though the vote was eight to one to affirm the Ohio Court’s decision, the public remains largely divided.  Some argue that frisking is searching and without the benefit of probable cause being identified by the arresting officer clearly violates the words and intentions of the Fourth Amendment.  Being suspicious of a person is reason enough to warrant the officer asking questions of the individual but searching violates the Constitution.  Others cite the safety of the officer as reason enough to allow them to search anyone they deem to be acting in a suspicious manner and if something illegal is found, it should be admissible evidence in court.  The Supreme Court overwhelmingly agreed with the latter opinion.

The detective thought these men may be ‘casing’ the store and intended to rob it at a later time so he approached them, had them turn around, raise their hands, and ‘patted them down.’ Two of the three were found carrying weapons, Terry and Chilton, who were arrested and charged with concealed weapons violations. The seemingly simple case that more likely would have been settled in a municipal court became a test of the U.S. Constitution.

What decisions were made

At the trial, the defense argued that the facts of the case did not satisfy the definition of probable cause therefore the weapons were illegally seized, a violation of the Fourth Amendment, and should not be allowed as evidence during the trial. Of course, this would have led to an immediate dismissal of the case. The prosecution countered that the detective was within his full legal right to ‘frisk’ the men, that the evidence satisfied the definition of reasonable cause and that the officer’s safety was dependent on this interpretation of the law.

The court decided that the officer did have reasonable cause to believe the suspects were armed and were within his legal right to search them. It also declared that stopping an individual for questioning did not require the level of probable cause that is needed prior to making an arrest, suspicion was sufficient. The court also drew a distinction between a ‘frisk’ of the clothing and what is referred to as a ‘full-blown’ search. ‘Frisking’ did not require the level of probable cause as did a full search, suspicious behavior was sufficient and if an illegal weapon or substance is found, was admissible as evidence against the perpetrator.

How the law changed
The law, in this case, did not change, it was more clearly defined. There are many, however, that disagree with the finding of the courts and believe this is just another step in the continual eroding of civil liberties in the country. Those that agree with the ruling insist that broadening the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment is reasonable because it provides added safety for the police and doesn’t infringe on freedoms to a point disagreeable to most Americans. Still, others say that any infringement is unconstitutional.