Brief Of Terry V Ohio, 67 US 392 1968

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Brief of Terry v. Ohio, 67 U.S 392 (1968)

Facts and Procedural History

Terry was tried in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County for carrying a concealed

weapon. The court found him guilty of the crime and did not give him room to appeal. However

the defendant Mr. Terry Ohio went on to the Supreme Court and appealed his case. Supreme

Court Judge Mr. Chief Justice Warren dismissed the appeal on grounds that there was no any

constitutional basis on which the defendant had appealed the case and therefore the decision of

the low court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Detective Mcfadden who was a key witnesses

in this case testified that he had keenly observed the defendant who was in the company of two

other men and judging from experience he was certain that there was something fishy that the

trio were up to and after stopping and frisking them he was able to recover two revolvers from

Chilton and Terry but no weapon was found on Katz. The defendant’s stand was that the police

officer had infringed into his rights by reaching his hands beneath his undergarments during the

search. The detective said that he felt the pistol on Terry and thus he had no option other than

picking it out so as to protect the people that were present at the scenario including him.

Issue

The fourth amendment defends the personal rights of every individual stating no individual

should be subjected into physical abuse which in this case there was a weapon concealed by the

defendant and the officer had no option other than to reach out for the weapon. Therefore, the

matter before the court is whether the officer is justified of his actions.

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Ruling

Yes, basing on experience the Officer had every right to stop and frisk the suspects. The fourth

amendment only applies to citizens who are in line with what the law states but in this case Terry

together with his affiliates had gone against the law by carrying concealed weapons which the

Detective discovered.

Analysis

The Supreme Court stated that the context of the case in regards to the testimony by the Officer

proved that the defendants were operating against the law and this justified the police officer to

get to the extent of fishing out the concealed weapons for the interest of security. However, the

Supreme Court also clarified that when an issue is under investigation and there is still time to

follow up on a matter, a warrant of search or arrest can be issued to the suspect so as to approve

on the search that an officer will conduct on the individual or even his or her house. The Court

was also clear on instances that might be a threat to security stating that an officer would be

justified to conduct an unwarranted search in order to protect the security of the citizens.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Cuyahoga Court stating that the defendants

appeal was not watertight when measured on the balance by law. Therefore, there was no

constitutional ground on which the defendant was appealing the case.

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Brief of Terry v Ohio, 67 US 392 1968

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams