Terry v ohio issue. Terry v. Ohio, Stop and Frisk Under the Fourth Amendment 2022-12-28
Terry v ohio issue
Rating:
6,8/10
1066
reviews
A strong thesis statement is a crucial element of a research paper as it helps to guide the focus of the paper and provide a structure for the arguments being made. It should be clear, concise, and specific, and it should provide the reader with a sense of the direction the paper will take.
One key characteristic of a strong thesis statement is that it is specific. It should not be too broad or vague, but rather should be focused on a specific argument or point that the paper will explore in depth. This helps to keep the paper on track and ensures that the reader knows exactly what to expect from the paper.
Another important aspect of a strong thesis statement is that it is debatable. It should present a position or argument that can be supported with evidence and that is open to being challenged or debated by others. This allows the research paper to engage with the broader academic conversation and contribute to the ongoing discussion in the field.
Finally, a strong thesis statement should be concise and to the point. It should be expressed in a single sentence, or at most a few sentences, and should not be unnecessarily long or complex. This helps to ensure that the reader can easily understand the main argument being made and that the paper is well-organized and easy to follow.
In summary, a strong thesis statement is an essential element of a research paper as it helps to guide the focus of the paper and provide a structure for the arguments being made. It should be specific, debatable, and concise, and it should clearly express the main argument or point being made in the paper.
Terry v. Ohio :: 392 U.S. 1 (1968) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
This man then left the two others and walked west on Euclid Avenue. The state court found that, while the Cleveland officers did not have probable cause to arrest Terry, they did possess a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that allowed them to stop and interrogate Terry. Also, although the Court puts the matter aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. I also agree that frisking petitioner and his companions for guns was a "search. But a stern refusal by this Court to condone such activity does not necessarily render it responsive to the exclusionary rule. United States, 333 U. Two months later, on June 5, 1968, Robert Kennedy was shot while campaigning for president.
Next
Terry vs Ohio and Fourth Amendment
A ruling admitting evidence in a criminal trial, we recognize, has the necessary effect of legitimizing the conduct which produced the evidence, while an application of the exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional imprimatur. United States, 371 U. He had observed Terry, Chilton, and Katz go through a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation. United States, 338 U. It was this legitimate investigative function Officer McFadden was discharging when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. United States, 335 U. United States, Beck v.
Next
Terry v. Ohio, Stop and Frisk Under the Fourth Amendment
United States, 364 U. Moreover, in some contexts the rule is ineffective as a deterrent. United States, 371 U. New York, post, p. We therefore reject the notions that the Fourth Amendment does not come into play at all as a limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of something called a "technical arrest" or a "full-blown search. Although the trio had departed the original scene, there was nothing to indicate abandonment of an intent to commit a robbery at some point.
Next
Terry v. Ohio: 50 Years Later
Here, considering the circumstances, it was reasonable for the experienced officer to suspect the two men were planning a As a result, it was proper for the officer to conduct a searched for weapons, as the interest in the safety of the officer and the public outweighed any privacy right the individuals had under the 4 th Amendment. However, McFadden did have a reasonable suspicion the men were armed and about to commit a robbery. He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer surface of their garments until he had felt weapons, and then he merely reached for and removed the guns. They are not authorized by it. The stopping of the individual to inquire is not an arrest and the ground upon which the police may make the inquiry may be less incriminating than the ground for an arrest for a crime known to have been committed. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. He was not acquainted with any of the three men by name or by sight, and he had received no information concerning them from any other source.
Next
Terry v. Ohio
Petitioner's reliance on cases which have worked out standards of reasonableness with regard to "seizures" constituting arrests and searches incident thereto is thus misplaced. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. United States, 268 U. The Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum. Rather, he says it is unreasonable for the policeman to take that step until such time as the situation evolves to a point where there is probable cause to make an arrest. Justice Douglas disagreed, however, with the Court's finding that police officers do not need probable cause and a warrant to frisk a suspect. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness.
Next
Terry v. Ohio Case Brief
United States, 361 U. Issue Before the Court There was one real issue before the U. He saw one of the men leave the other one and walk southwest on Huron Road, past some stores. The revolver was used as evidence against Terry at a state trial that resulted in a conviction. United States, 361 U. Just as a full search incident to a lawful arrest requires no additional justification, a limited frisk incident to a lawful stop must often be rapid and routine. Officer McFadden's right to interrupt Terry's freedom of movement and invade his privacy arose only because circumstances warranted forcing an encounter with Terry in an effort to prevent or investigate a crime.
Next
Terry v. Ohio
By this time, Officer McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed request for an appeal and the U. The general warrant, in which the name of the person to be arrested was left blank, and the writs of assistance, against which James Otis inveighed, both perpetuated the oppressive practice of allowing the police to arrest and search on suspicion. This evidence consisted of the testimony of the arresting officer and of Chilton. Suspicious of the activity, Officer McFadden followed Chilton and Terry as they left the street corner. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however.
Next
Terry v. Ohio: Supreme Court Case, Arguments, Impact
Thus it must be limited to that which is necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may realistically be characterized as something less than a "full" search, even though it remains a serious intrusion. Thus, only Terry's conviction is here for review. He would later learn the two walkers were John Terry and Richard Chilton. 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. United States, Henry v. Deciding that the situation was ripe for direct action, Officer McFadden approached the three men, identified himself as a police officer and asked for their names.
Next