After this had gone on for 10 to 12 minutes, the two men walked off together, heading west on Euclid Avenue, following the path taken earlier by the third man. All the information on this site is constantly updated and edited. What the reader does know about the case is that there was a stop, search, a gun found and carrying a concealed weapon. For, as this Court has always recognized, 'No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. We are saying that, at the point this police officer approached these men, and at the point he laid his hands on the citizen, that he had—he did not have the probable cause that is required. The men then began to walk down the block and the police officer followed them. To give power to the police to seize a person on some grounds different from or less than 'probable cause' would be handing them more authority than could be exercised by a magistrate in issuing a warrant to seize a person.
Upon feeling what he thought were guns in the coat pockets of Terry and Chilton, he ordered the men to remove their jackets, face the wall, and place their hands above their heads. It cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate police investigative techniques on the ground that much conduct which is closely similar involves unwarranted intrusions upon constitutional protections. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. And this is a different thing than an arrest for the purpose of taking them to the station house and booking them for a crime. At this point, keeping Terry between himself and the others, the officer ordered all three men to enter Zucker's store. One of the men walked away and stopped to look in a nearby store window, continued walking, and on the way back stopped to look in the same store window before rejoining the other man.
Ohio: The Case Profile The Terry v. Officer McFadden proceeded to pat down the outer clothing of Chilton and the third man, Katz. His justifiable suspicion afforded a proper constitutional basis for accosting Terry, restraining his liberty of movement briefly, and addressing questions to him, and Officer McFadden did so. 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. Suppose he wants to do something short of arresting him? But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.
At Issue Where weapons seized from the defendant obtained through an illegal search, under the Fourth Amendment, due to the Detective not having probable cause for an arrest. Although its first decision in this area, People v. This case made a big impact on the police departments of the United States by giving officers more reasons to make an arrest. John Terry claimed that the search was illegal because it invaded his right to privacy. In such cases, of course, the officer may make an 'arrest' which results in charging the individual with commission of a crime.
Please keep in mind that this site makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the cases listed here or the current status of law. Thus, evidence may not be introduced if it was discovered by means of a seizure and search which were not reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation Warden v. This was the argument used by the defense when they tried to get the charges against Terry dropped. This demand for specificity in the information upon which police action is predicated is the central teaching of this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. As we stated in Henry v.
We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, see, e. Detective McFadden approached the three men and asked them for their names. He did not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever evidence of criminal activity he might find. These men did this about five or six times before another man came and had a brief conversation, then left. United States, , 367-368 1964 ; Agnello v. Having thus roughly sketched the perimeters of the constitutional debate over the limits on police investigative conduct in general and the background against which this case presents itself, we turn our attention to the quite narrow question posed by the facts before us: whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest.
The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. But the mistakes must be those of reasonable men, acting on facts leading sensibly to their conclusions of probability. In addition, Justice Douglas was troubled by the that clearly provide more power and authority to the police at the expense of. 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. This, it is argued, can only serve to exacerbate police-community tensions in the crowded centers of our Nation's cities. The court held that police may conduct a limited search of a person for weapons that could endanger the officer or those nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence. Requiring more would unduly hamper law enforcement.
Ever since its inception, the rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment has been recognized as a principal mode of discouraging lawless police conduct. A Cleveland detective McFadden , on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two stranger on a street corner. There are two weaknesses in this line of reasoning, however. But, in both our lower court and in our Appellate Court, in stating that a police officer should inquire promptly into suspicious on-the-street activity, we brought out the fact—and the record will show—that there was no interrogation, there was no investigation in this case as a result of the officer approaching him. However, this argument must be closely examined.
The case between Terry v. And that principle has survived to this day. And by suggesting a rigid all-or-nothing model of justification and regulation under the Amendment, it obscures the utility of limitations upon the scope, as well as the initiation, of police action as a means of constitutional regulation. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon , or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The sense of exterior touch here involved is not very far different from the sense of sight or hearing-- senses upon which police customarily act.