CASE LAW

Terry vs. Ohio Case Law



Terry vs. Ohio Case Law

Introduction

A case against the State of Ohio was filed by a man named John W. Terry. The state of Ohio responded to the case, and it was decided by the Warren Court, in 1968. The case falls in the category of con law, fourth amendment, searches and seizures, criminal, and it highlights issues such as criminal procedures and seizures. The case originally arose when two people found to possess concealed weapons by a police officer. The petitioner in this case filed a motion to suppress the evidence by filing a case that he did not hurt anyone or did not break any law on the street. He said that he did not break any law therefore, there was no case against him, and the police did not have any case against (Wetterer 2001). When the case started the court heard the case from both sides, and in the end, the court decided that there was no case, and the motion over ruled, and the court directed that the case trial should continue. The case was case heard by a bench, because in this case, the jury waived.

Discussion and Analyses

On October 31, 1963, a police officer named McFadden was on his regular duty (i.e. patrolling) in Cleveland, Ohio. He saw two men (petitioner and Chilton) behaving in a suspicious manner. He watched them pacing back and forth in front of a store window and staring inside the store. After a while, the third man (Katz) approached them and they repeated the same pattern of walk, and discussed something swiftly, and then the third man headed towards a couple of blocks away in front of the store the other two men followed him (Walker & Hemmens 2010). Detective McFadden then followed them and saw three of them discussing something, he showed them his card and identified himself as a police officer and asked their names. One man mumbled something the police officer asked him to turn around and frisked him the officer felt a pistol butt inside his overcoat. He immediately ordered the three men into the store. He took out a revolver from the first man's pocket and ordered them to face the wall, and then he patted down the other two men and seized a revolver from the other man's (Chilton) overcoat pocket. All three of them taken to the police station, and two men named Terry and Chilton charged with concealed weapons [according to 392 U.S. 1, 2], and sent to jail for three years.

The court believed that the officer had the right to pat down the outer clothing of the suspicious men for his own protection. The court distinguished between a full search of evidence of crime and a frisk of outer clothing for weapons, and an arrest and an investigatory stop. Both of the men who possessed concealed weapons found guilty and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the basis of no substantial constitutional question ...