Terry v. Ohio – FYS 100 – 34: The Rights of the Criminally Accused

Terry v. Ohio was a case based on stop and frisk. John Terry and Richard Chilton were seen looking into a store 24 times and having brief conversations afterwards by Officer McFadden. After witnessing this, McFadden also witnessed Terry and Chilton meet up with a man by the name of Carl Katz a few blocks away. McFadden identified himself as a police officer and questioned the three men. When there was no response to his question, McFadden patted the men down and found a concealed weapon on Terry and one of his friends.

The vote breakdown of the case was 8-1, and Justice Warren wrote the opinion. Justice Warren states that a search and seizure clearly occurred according to the Fourth Amendment. A search and seizure occurred because the three men were unable to move freely for a period of time and they were patted down. Warren focuses on whether the search and seizure was constitutional based on the facts at hand. The facts that Warren had led him to believe that a crime was going to be committed, and in order to protect himself and the public a stop and frisk occurred. The Court found the search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, so any weapons found on the individual can be used as evidence.

I agree with the ruling of the Court, that the stop and frisk was constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. I agree with this because Officer McFadden was an officer for over 30 years; therefore he knew what to look for. In this case, looking into the same store window 24 times and having brief conversations between the looks was enough for McFadden to determine that a robbery may occur. I also find the dissenting opinion written by Justice Douglas to be interesting. Justice Douglas argues that the person and their effects are protected from governmental agencies until probable cause is reached. He believes that allowing police officers to stop and frisk individuals can lead to searches based on what you are wearing and the way you look. This becomes problematic in high crime areas because the probable cause becomes the area and not the activity of the person.

Zachary Justice says:

October 19, 2016 at 10:57 am

Sydney, I like how you pulled in the relevance of the officers position as a respected official of over 30 years. When deciding on a Fourth Amendment infraction it is essential to determine whether or not the officer has probable cause, which I believe you nailed when stating the officer was “protecting himself and the public” based on his experiences in the work. I do however believe that this issue of stop and frisk based of a police officers assumptions needs to be questioned in relation to the general public. As mentioned in the dissenting opinion, the allowance of stop and frisk gives a whole new world of power to police officers, and an easy way for them to invade someone privacy. It is a current issue now in certain cities where claims of racial profiling is occurring due to the legality of stop and frisk. Stories have come out about people minding their own business at bus stops and all the sudden they are being searched by police. These police are able to cite Terry v. Ohio and say a certain behavior of the person minding their own business tipped them off to illegal activity constituting a search. In my opinion this search would be considered unreasonable, breaking the Fourth Amendment. There is something to be said for public safety, but I believe officers need to be held much more accountable for their random stop and frisks, potentially having more strict guidelines on when they can and cannot perform one of these searches.

Abigail Lord says:

October 23, 2016 at 9:58 pm

The question you impose “is it reasonable to allow these people we know for a fact have committed a crime walk free with the general public?” is one I often consider. It’s very frustrating because both solutions seem to produce problems. On one hand, if anyone witnesses wrongdoing, making it known for a fact that one committed a crime, it should be extremely easy to punish this person. No matter how the information was gained, if someone is evidently guilty, they deserve to serve their time. The issue with this is giving officials way too much power and ability to access details in any person’s life. In our country, especially, we greatly value an individual’s rights and privacy. If the court ruled someone guilty, even though the police gained evidence against them illegally, there would be no true value to one’s rights and privacy. An example of this is the case US v. Jones (2012), where police obtained clear evidence to convict a criminal, but were unable to use any of it because their search warrant had expired. In a perfect world, the American legal system would work because no one would have anything to hide. Unfortunately, people do break the law and can use the justice system to avoid punishment. It must be insanely hard for law enforcement to see individuals, who they know are criminals, return to the public unscathed; especially, because their job’s purpose is to protect others from these people. Obviously, it is imperative that police follow the many strict rules and regulations laid out for them in order to bring justice to criminals.