Terry vs. Ohio Term Paper

Pages: 5 (1773 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: ≈ 6  ·  File: .docx  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Business - Law

¶ … Terry vs. Ohio:

police officer saw two doubtful men standing in a street corner in October of 1963. One of the persons was Terry. He had never noticed the men in the area before, and his police intuition drew them to his eye. According to him, they were not in the right place at the right time. Due to this doubt, the officer took a close watch from around 400 feet away. He saw one of the men leave the corner, and walked across many stores. The man peeped into the store windows, and started walking. After some time, he turned back around, and peeped in the same windows again as he went back to the corner where his friend was waiting. The two then chatted for a brief period of time. Then, the man who had earlier stayed on the corner then began to do the same steps as his friend had done earlier. The two men exchanged onwards and forwards for six times, always peeping into the same stores. While the two men were talking after their trips, a third man come up to the first two, and occupied them in conversation. The third man then went away, permitting the first two to carry on their walking past the stores. After another 10 minutes, the first two men left the corner together; in the direction of the third man.Download full Download Microsoft Word File
paper NOW!

TOPIC: Term Paper on Terry vs. Ohio Assignment

By this time, the police officer was exceedingly doubtful. From his 35 years of experience, he thought that the men were covering a job, or estimating intentions for robbing. He thought that it was his responsibility to probe further. He was also frightened that the men might have been some arms with them, as in his opinion they were about to carry out robbery. The officer then went behind the two until they met back up with the third man in front of one particular store. The officer took this chance to come closer to all three men, and recognize himself as a police officer. He asked the three men their names, they muttered disjointedly. The officer then caught hold of the man in the middle, whom turned out to be Terry. In the left breast pocket, he felt a handgun, but was not able to confiscate it. The officer then detached Terry's jacket, and recovered a.38-caliber pistol. When the officer saw the weapons on the two suspects, this gave him likely clue to fully explore those individuals for any other illegal imports. He then called for help, and took all three men into charge, and Terry, along with the other man whom had a weapon, were to be accused of having secret weapons. (Review of the Terry vs Ohio case)

Terry was found guilty of having secret weapons and was imprisoned for three years. The gun and bullets seized by the police offer was used as proof in the trial. The defense had filed a pre-trial proposal to have the proof concealed. Any proof found by an illegitimate search, would not be permissible. but, first the investigation was to be made unlawful. The motion was not approved, as the judge felt that on the source of the officer's knowledge, he had reasons to carry out a questioning, thus not going against Terry's fourth amendment rights. The defense requested to the Supreme Court, based on the result of the trial. The foremost question the Supreme Court had was if Terry's privilege to personal security was dishonored by an unfair search and arrest. Thus, the judgment here is as to whether or not the actions were regarded as logical. but, at times of instant checking, it is not realistic for an officer to get a warrant. However, good belief alone is not sufficient to decide if a situation is unpractical, and to overrule these rules.

The Court supposed that the actions the officer observed were sufficient to permit the officer to sensibly doubt the men could have been armed. Thus, the Supreme Court confirmed the sentence to Terry. The results of this case produced consequences that are not clear to some. Now a police officer has the right to arrest and investigate any person without a warranty or even possible reason, as long as he is able to defend a doubt that the person was carrying arms. Also, whatever thing the officer thinks during that search may then be used as possible reason, permitting the officer to carry out a full search. From Terry v Ohio case, other cases have appeared before the Supreme Court that have increased the power of the stop and frisk giving that power to search cars. Every time the judiciary passes a law, it creates disagreement and this case is no exemption. (Review of the Terry vs Ohio case)

Constitutional Amendments:

The rights of the people to be safe in their personnel, houses, papers and effects against unfair investigations and confiscation are protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court is guided in interpreting the Amendment by the traditional protections against unfair investigations and confiscation given by the common law at the time of the framing. If an officer has possible reason to suppose that a person has done even a very minor criminal offense in his presence, he can, without infringing the Fourth Amendment, detain the criminal. The officer can check when he has a doubt that the crime is happening, by stopping the person for a short time and can search the person for arms. Law enforcement officers do not go against the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unfair confiscation just by coming near persons on the street or in other public places and asking them if they are willing to pay attention. The law enforcement officers may pose a question, ask for credentials, and demand permission to check their baggage even when they do not have any reason for doubting a specific person, and if they do not bring on support by coercive measures. If a sensible person would feel free to conclude the meet, then he or she has not been detained. (Fourth Amendment Law)

The Exclusionary Rule is distinctive to the Criminal Justice System of the United States. Though many state that without the Exclusionary Rule, the rights of all citizens are at danger, it is often criticized for giving offenders more rights than the sufferers. The U.S. Supreme Court has formed the Exclusionary Rule after a series of court decisions and it states that any proof got unlawfully cannot be used in the court of law. As per the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution every inhabitant of the United States is given the right of Due Process, which means a fair hearing. The Exclusionary Rule enhances these rights of justice to incorporate the dealing out of scandalous criminals before appearing in court. This rule is disturbed by Terry vs Ohio case as Terry argued that the investigation carried out by the officer was against the law and by using the Exclusionary Rule; the courts must reverse the arrest. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a frisk is not a search. When the Officer stopped Terry and drove him into the wall, the Officer was not just following an intuition, but had an articulable doubt that Terry and the man who was with him were going to perform an armed robbery. The Court also ruled that the Officer had in fact carried out a search when he checked Terry's pocket, but, a warrant was not required as the Officer had possible reason based upon his earlier knowledge of guns as the result of searches. (the Exclusionary Rule)

As per the protections given by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, a police officer has the right to conduct an instant stop and can search for arms. The Court maintains that though the right does not require the officer to have a valid warrant, or the reality of possible reasons, these actions must be logical, as the officer realistically narrates them in a court. The problem is to find out what makes a search sensible, as the query in most cases is if the proof given by a search is permissible. For the unfair investigations and confiscation, which is damned in the Fourth Amendment are nearly made for the intention of forcing a person to give proof against himself, which in criminal cases is destined in the Fifth Amendment; and forcing a person in a criminal case to be a witness against himself, which is destined in the Fifth Amendment, hurls glow on the query as to what is an unfair investigation and confiscation within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (U.S. Supreme Court -TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) 392 U.S. 1)

Legal guide for officers and supervisors as to when to give or not to give Miranda forewarning to the suspects under inquiring is given in this web page: http://www.llrmi.com/Articles/ct-questioning.cfm (Legal guide for officers and supervisors)

Conclusion plain-clothes policeman in what the… [END OF PREVIEW] . . . READ MORE

Two Ordering Options:

Which Option Should I Choose?
1.  Download full paper (5 pages)Download Microsoft Word File

Download the perfectly formatted MS Word file!

- or -

2.  Write a NEW paper for me!✍🏻

We'll follow your exact instructions!
Chat with the writer 24/7.

Racial Profiling Just This Past April Term Paper

Miranda Warnings and Miranda-Based Law Thesis

Police Officer Term Paper

View 200+ other related papers  >>

How to Cite "Terry vs. Ohio" Term Paper in a Bibliography:

APA Style

Terry vs. Ohio.  (2005, March 3).  Retrieved December 5, 2021, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/terry-ohio/9358461

MLA Format

"Terry vs. Ohio."  3 March 2005.  Web.  5 December 2021. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/terry-ohio/9358461>.

Chicago Style

"Terry vs. Ohio."  Essaytown.com.  March 3, 2005.  Accessed December 5, 2021.