Why terry v Ohio considered a landmark case?

Answer 1

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

Here is the summary of that case. This case was decided on June 10, 1968:

A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (Terry and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol.

The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying [p2]concealed weapons.

The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed.

The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime.

Terry and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

Answer 2

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

Terry expanded authorized police investigation techniques to include "stop and frisk," or a quick external pat down of suspicious individuals when police have reason to be concerned for their safety or that of others.

Terry's attorney attempted to have the evidence, a gun recovered during his client's search, suppressed in court under the theory that the pat down constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The US Supreme Court held the restrained "stop and frisk" was constitutional when the concern was legitimate.

This decision was important for several reasons:

1. Reduces risk to police officers
2. Expands police investigation tools
3. Allows items found during the search to be used as evidence in court

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 3

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

The State of Ohio won by a vote of 8-1, with Justice William O. Douglas dissenting.

The US Supreme Court held that "stop and frisk" was a legitimate investigatory technique when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety. The evidence obtained may not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule when the search and seizure is appropriate.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 4

The 1968 Terry vs. Ohio case involved a group of men who were searched and one convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. Although the men had not committed a crime, officers felt the search was warranted because they were acting "suspiciously. " The Court upheld the officers decision and the conviction stating, "Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances. "

Answer 5

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

The US Supreme Court held that "stop and frisk" was a legitimate investigatory technique when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety. The evidence obtained may not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule when the search and seizure is appropriate.

The question involved a Fourth Amendment challenge to the officer's actions, alleging they constituted an "unreasonable search and seizure." The issue before the Court involved whether the confiscated evidence was admissible in court, or whether it was protected by the Exclusionary Rule.

In an 8-1 decision, the Warren Court held that the exclusionary rule couldn't be invoked to exclude the product of "legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques."

The Court held that the stop, or seizure, and frisk, or search, was valid when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety.

In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Warren stated:

"Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

"(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required."

The majority of the Court concluded the "stop and frisk" technique was constitutional as long as the action could be rationally justified by circumstances.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 6

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

The US Supreme Court held that "stop and frisk" was a legitimate investigatory technique when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety. The evidence obtained may not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule when the search and seizure is appropriate.

In an 8-1 decision, the Warren Court held that the exclusionary rule couldn't be invoked to exclude the product of "legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques."

The Court held that the stop, or seizure, and frisk, or search, was valid when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety.

In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Warren stated:

"Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

"(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required."

The majority of the Court concluded the "stop and frisk" technique was constitutional as long as the action could be rationally justified by circumstances.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 7

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

Answer

The US Supreme Court held that "stop and frisk" was a legitimate investigatory technique when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety. The evidence obtained may not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule when the search and seizure is appropriate.

Explanation

A Cleveland police officer (Martin McFadden) observed two unidentified men on a street corner in his beat. As the officer watched, the men took turns walking a short distance down the sidewalk and peering in a particular store window. After each circuit, the men would appear to confer about something. This occurred a total of twenty-four times (according to the Supreme Court opinion; McFadden's earlier testimony indicates the men walked to the store and peered through the window approximately 3-5 times each).

McFadden watched as the men were briefly joined by a third person who left quickly. The suspicious activity caused McFadden to suspect the men were planning to rob the store.

After the third individual left, the men began walking away in the direction of the store. McFadden followed and observed from a distance until they met up with the third party. McFadden then approached the group, identified himself as police, and asked the men's names.

The men mumbled something unintelligible, at which point McFadden turned one of the suspects and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the process, the officer found a gun in the pocket of the suspect's jacket. He then directed all three men to enter a store with their hands raised, and proceeded to pat down the other two suspects, recovering a revolver from one. The three were taken to the local police station, where two were charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

At trial, the defense attorney moved to suppress the weapons as evidence. The prosecution asserted McFadden's actions were reasonable based on his observations, and that he had the right to search the men for his protection.

The men were found guilty, and the court's decision was affirmed by the state appellate court. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question.

Supreme Court Decision

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on a Fourth Amendment challenge to the officer's actions as constituting an "unreasonable search and seizure." The issue before the Court involved whether the confiscated evidence was admissible in court, or whether it was protected by the exclusionary rule.

In an 8-1 decision, the Warren Court held that the exclusionary rule couldn't be invoked to exclude the product of "legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques."

The Court held that the stop, or seizure, and frisk, or search, was valid when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety.

In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Warren stated:

"Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

"(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required."

The majority of the Court concluded the "stop and frisk" technique was constitutional as long as the action could be rationally justified by circumstances.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 8

Terry expanded authorized police investigation techniques to include "stop and frisk," or a quick external pat down of suspicious individuals when police have reason to be concerned for their safety or that of others.

Terry's attorney attempted to have the evidence, a gun recovered during his client's search, suppressed in court under the theory that the pat down constituted an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

The US Supreme Court held the restrained "stop and frisk" was constitutional when the concern was legitimate.

This decision was important for several reasons:

1. Reduces risk to police officers
2. Expands police investigation tools
3. Allows items found during the search to be used as evidence in court

Case Citation:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

Answer 9

Terry v. Ohio is a landmark case that rules that police may stop and detain you and also "frisk you" if they have reason to believe you are armed or dangerous.

The Supreme Court rules that officers must have a basis in fact to detain someone and perform what's now known as a "Terry Stop". They also indirectly stated but implied that any officer who detains a person without cause and proceeds to frisk them has in fact violated their constitutional right to protection against unlawful search and seizure.