Terry v. Ohio

In Terry vs. Ohio Officer-Detective Martin McFadden, was patrolling in downtown cleveland one afternoon when he observed John Terry and Richard Chilton. Both men were engaged in suspicious activity as they paced up and down the street stopping several times to look into a store. Than the two guys met up with a third guy named Carl Katz. He came momentarily then he left, and the two men (John and Richard) later on went to meet him several blocks up the road. This is when Officer-Detective McFadden acted on his suspicion. He approached the men stated that he was a police officer, and told the men to identify themselves. Than McFadden patted them down, and found a weapon on Terry, and another man and arrested them on concealed weapon charges. The search was seen as “reasonable” by The United States Supreme Court, and the men were found guilty of the charges.

I agree with the majority of the court that the Officer-Detective suspicion of a armed robbery caused him to have to do a search of the three men. If he would not have searched the three men his life would have been in danger every moment he conversed with them. Although I do agree with the court and their ruling I believe Justice Douglas says a valid point in his dissenting opinion when he says “Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.” Giving the police to much power can be dangerous to the Fourth Amendment, and this must be regulated. If they are capable of “stopping” and “frisking” at will then it could easily get out of hand.

The biggest conflict with this is every officer is a different person with different views and opinions. Probable cause may vary throughout different officers saying what they think is and isn’t. With Probable cause varying so will the “stop” and “frisk”. Therefore with very little consistency who is to say what is just and what is not just through the police man’s belief of probable cause? Will there be consequences for the victims that feel violated after they get frisked and aren’t guilty?