Terry_vs_Ohio_Court_Case

In October of 1963, a police officer was patrolling a downtown street in Cleveland, Ohio, which he had been patrolling for many years. He observed two strangers walking back and forth to stop and stare in the same window. They did this several times when suddenly a third man appeared. They all followed the same route and continued to look in the store’s windows. The police officer became very suspicious after watching these three men for awhile. He began to believe the men were up to committing a robbery and feared that they were armed. The officer approached the three men and identified himself as a police officer. He asked the men their names and they answered with a mumble. The officer patted each of them down on the outside of their clothing. A pistol was found in two of the men’s jackets and no weapons were found in the third man’s jacket. Terry was one of the men found with a pistol. Both of the men were taken into custody where they were to be charged with carrying concealed weapons. Terry was sentenced to one to three years in jail. The gun that was confiscated by the police officer would be evidence in the trial, but since this was an illegal search, the gun was not admissible. However the case first needed to be declared illegal. The judge felt though that the police officer’s experience was enough reason for the search to take place and it did not violate Terry’s fourth amendment rights. This court case was brought up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s main concern was whether Terry’s personal rights were violated. The court decided that the patting of outer clothing is a search. The judgment in this case is whether the police officer’s actions were unreasonable or not. The court decided that the actions made by the three men was enough for the police officer to reasonably suspect the men to be armed or up to no good. Terry was found guilty. The constitutional amendment that made this controversial was the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The police officer searched Terry without a warrant which led to the Supreme Court’s decision on whether this was a violation of Terry’s rights or not. The fourth amendment shows that Terry has the right to be secure against unreasonable searches. The officer’s argument was that he had enough experience in the police force to suspect the three men’s actions. The police officer only used his best judgment on his suspicion and searched the men with no warrant. The Terry vs. Ohio case brought about the issue of police officer’s invading the rights of citizens without a probable cause. Police officer’s now have the right to search a person without a probable cause or without a warrant. This is only if the police officer can justify their suspicion of the person being armed. Also if an officer feels anything while patting down the individual, it can be used as a probable cause and can allow the officer to fully search the person. This court case created the “stop and frisk.” This means that a police officer with any suspicion of an individual has the power to search the person to determine if they are carrying a concealed weapon. My opinion is that the police officer had every right to search the three men. I think this because the men showed many signs and actions that they were about to commit a robbery. They were taking turns walking back and forth while looking in store windows and meeting at the corner, where they would speak to each other for a period of time. I also think the officer had the right to search them because he had many years in the police force and used his best judgment. If a citizen looks suspicious, an officer should have every right to search the person. The officer had enough suspicion on the three men to make his search reasonable. The police officer had the right and all his power to search the men, and if anything was felt while being patted down, the officer could allow a full search on them. I don’t think Terry’s fourth amendment was violated. This is because the officer had reason to believe and enough suspicion that he was up to no good. I think if you have nothing to hide and you’re not doing anything wrong, there should be no problem with a police officer searching you.