Terry Vs Ohio

Terry vs. Ohio

Introduction to Criminal Justice

By Leann Rathbone

9/12/06

Terry vs. Ohio is a landmark case that was brought to the Supreme Court. It started on October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, when a police officer named Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a store front window. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look into the store window when he reached the end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store front window. Upon reaching the other man, the two talked. The other man then made the same trip down the street, pausing to look in the same store front window. A third man then joined the other two men at the corner. They talked and then the third man left. The two men then returned to the ritual of walking up and down the street. McFadden then followed the two men, and watched as they met up with the third man in front of the store. At this point, Officer McFadden walked up to the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked for their names. He asked the first man, Terry, to turn around. He frisked him, and, feeling a pistol inside Terry's overcoat, he ordered the three men into the store. Terry and the second man Chilton was charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and were each sentenced to a three-year term in prison.

During the trial the defense moved to suppress the weapons, stating that you must have the probable cause that is required to place a person under arrest. The defense attorney goes on to ague that Officer McFadden did do the "smart" thing, but not a "Constitutional" thing. A "stop and frisk" is no less invasive than a warranted search, the court found that there interrogation was warranted and that the police officer had a right for his own protection to pat them down. By doing this the court distinguished between an "Investigatory Stop" and an arrest. The court also distinguished the difference between a "Frisk" of outer clothing and a full search of evidence.

This argument went all the way to the Supreme Court of Ohio the case was Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S 1 (1968) (Caselaw.com).The arguments on both sides were as follows; ACLU side and counsel argued that "a Frisk is a search within the meaning of the fourth Amendment. Without probable cause, a "Frisk" is in violation of the Fourth Amendment. There is no legitimate public reason to create a "Frisk" exception to the Fourth Amendment in violation of the right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures" (ProCon.org). The opposing side argument is that "An officer has a right to stop a person based on suspicious behavior. Having had stopped a person, the officer has a right to "Frisk" a person for weapons for the protection of his own safety. This was a lawful arrest without a warrant, and evidence was obtained incident to the arrest, and is therefore admissible at trail." (ProCon.org)

In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court announced a new standard for police conduct in the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio. Chief Justice Warren, writing for the majority, held that police did not need "probable cause" to stop and frisk a citizen on the street. Instead, the Court imposed a lesser standard, called "reasonable suspicion." (CaseLaw.com) The Terry decision created an exception to the law of arrest, which is rooted