It by no means authorizes a search for contraband, evidentiary material, or anything else in the absence of reasonable grounds to arrest. He searched the third male, Katz, upon whom he found nothing. 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. The question is whether, in all the circumstances of this on-the-street encounter, his right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. And, that then after engaging in these additional trips, making a total of some ten to twelve trips, he observed that their interest was centered on the jewelry store or the airline office; that after so making the total number of trips, they then went across the street, and there again the three men came together, at which time they were having a conversation and at which time the officer had concluded that they were casing the establishment for a stickup.
Terry then appealed to the U. To engage in this action, Officer McFadden would need hard evidence that showed that the men were on the verge of committing a crime. At this point, taking into consideration the nature of the crime which he has concluded—a stick-up—and the use of weapons as they are characteristically used in a stick-up, there is only one course of conduct then open to a prudent police officer. See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for the United States -- 1966, at 45-48, 152 and Table 51. Terry V Ohio The Terry V Ohio case took place when a police officer stopped and checked three men because of their suspicious. The former, although justified in part by the acknowledged necessity to protect the arresting officer from assault with a concealed weapon, Preston v. This process normally involves the stopping of a person or vehicle with the purpose of interrogation or a brief investigation.
I mean in the sense of the circumstances involved at that particular time. The police have to believe that the person may be armed. Focusing the inquiry squarely on the dangers and demands of the particular situation also seems more likely to produce rules which are intelligible to the police and the public alike than requiring the officer in the heat of an unfolding encounter on the street to make a judgment as to which laws are 'of limited public consequence. Conversely, the Court may instead reiterate the standard in. 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. Consequently, the Ohio courts did not rest the constitutionality of this frisk upon any general authority in Officer McFadden to take reasonable steps to protect the citizenry, including himself, from dangerous weapons.
Procedural History The pretrial motion was to suppress the two pistols that was taken from Terry under the exclusionary rule and it was denied. The police have to articulate that a crime was committed, is being committed, or is going to be committed. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece--in all, roughly a dozen trips. Once that forced encounter was justified, however, the officer's right to take suitable measures for his own safety followed automatically. It seems to us that the State is in the position of saying to the Court that they are not satisfied with the Mapp exclusionary rule.
This law tries to balance the safety of the law enforcement officers and the rights of the citizens. The Court said that the Ker decision did not preclude the states from developing workable rules in order to bring about effective law enforcement in the states. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation. The appellate court did indicate that there was probable cause for arrest, after the frisk took place. As they went in, he removed Terry's overcoat completely, removed a. If he felt himself to be in any type of danger that he would conduct a search, for the purpose of protecting his own life in a possibly dangerous situation. He testified that after observing their elaborately casual and oft-repeated reconnaissance of the store window on Huron Road, he suspected the two men of 'casing a job, a stick-up,' and that he considered it his duty as a police officer to investigate further.
Where such a stop is reasonable, however, the right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the reason for the stop is, as here, an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence. Ohio case took place on December 12th of 1976. Prosecution for carrying concealed weapon. Ultimately the validity of the frisk narrows down to whether there is or is not a right by the police to touch the person questioned. Is that what you re saying? Terry and Richard Chilton pacing back and forth in front of a store looking inside. In such circumstances, police officers may conduct a reasonable search of the individual for weapons. Ohio court case In May, 1957, while in the of investigating a bombing that happened at a Cleveland home of Don King, three police officers visited the home of Doltree Mapp, who after calling her lawyers, asked that they produce a warrant which they did not have at the time of the first visit.
Would he, in your view, be abusing any right of the three of them in walking up to them and asking their names and what they were doing? I then began to pat him down. The men tell you that they have recently been released from prison and that they are just getting to know the neighborhood again. State of Ohio, 379 U. Ohio Legal Case Brief Paper Masters writes custom research papers on Terry v. First, Johnson points out that both requirements tend to coexist in practice; thus, the test will apply in most cases. We would ask this Court to be mindful, also, of the fact that if this Court does affirm this decision, it will in effect be affirming the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals, in which they have established the fruit-of-the-frisk doctrine for the State of Ohio.
Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation. At one point, while the two were standing together on the corner, a third man approached them and engaged them briefly in conversation. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. The trial court ruled by opinion in this case, and we then appealed to the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County. Given the narrowness of this question, we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him.
Even though there are confusions and issues, the following four factors lead to clear distinction between a stop and an arrest: Duration If the investigation is for a very short period of time, then it is considered to be a stop. Now they're saying to this court, give us another standard. During the pat-down search, the officer found a gun, which was used as evidence to convict Johnson at trial. Following the grant of the writ upon this joint petition, Chilton died. He noticed that the two men would take turns on looking inside of the window store. The testimony of the police officer was that there was business as usual in the downtown center of the City; stores were open and there were pedestrians on the street. By this time, Officer McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious.