Terry v. Ohio: Difference between revisions
imported>Gregory J. Prickett |
imported>Gregory J. Prickett (ref) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Background== | ==Background== | ||
===Facts of the case=== | ===Facts of the case=== | ||
On October 31, 1963, at about 2:30 p.m., [[Cleveland, Ohio|Cleveland]] police detective Martin McFadden observed John W. Terry and Richard Chilton on a street corner. Officer McFadden's attention was drawn to the two men and he began to observe them. McFadden watched the two men, one at a time walk by a store window about a dozen times, then talk to a third man for a few minutes, until the third man walked away. Terry and Chilton continued to walk past the store window for another 10-12 minutes, after which they began to walk down the same street as the third man.<ref>''Terry v. Ohio'', 392 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1968).</ref> | On October 31, 1963, at about 2:30 p.m., [[Cleveland, Ohio|Cleveland]] police detective Martin McFadden observed John W. Terry and Richard Chilton on a street corner. Officer McFadden's attention was drawn to the two men and he began to observe them. McFadden watched the two men, one at a time walk by a store window about a dozen times, then talk to a third man for a few minutes, until the third man walked away. Terry and Chilton continued to walk past the store window for another 10-12 minutes, after which they began to walk down the same street as the third man.<ref>''Terry v. Ohio'', 392 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1968); Louis Stokes, ''[http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview/vol72/iss3/2/ Representing John W. Terry]'', 72 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 327 (1998).</ref> | ||
McFadden, based 39 years experience as a police officer and on the subjects actions believed that the were casing the store to commit a robbery. He also feared that the men may be armed. Following Terry and Chilton, McFadden saw them meet with the third man again. McFadden then contacted the men, identifying himself as a police officer and asking their names. When the men were not very responsive, McFadden grabbed Terry, spun him around and patted down Terry's outer clothing.<ref>''Terry'', 392 U.S. at 5-7.</ref> | McFadden, based 39 years experience as a police officer and on the subjects actions believed that the were casing the store to commit a robbery. He also feared that the men may be armed. Following Terry and Chilton, McFadden saw them meet with the third man again. McFadden then contacted the men, identifying himself as a police officer and asking their names. When the men were not very responsive, McFadden grabbed Terry, spun him around and patted down Terry's outer clothing.<ref>''Terry'', 392 U.S. at 5-7; Stokes, 72 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. at 728, 730.</ref> | ||
During the pat-down or frisk, McFadden felt a weapon and removed a .38 caliber revolver. He also found a revolver on Chilton, but the third man, Carl Katz, was not armed. Terry and Chilton were arrested and charged with carrying concealed weapons.<ref>''Terry'', 392 U.S. at 7-8.</ref> | During the pat-down or frisk, McFadden felt a weapon and removed a .38 caliber revolver. He also found a revolver on Chilton, but the third man, Carl Katz, was not armed. Terry and Chilton were arrested and charged with carrying concealed weapons.<ref>''Terry'', 392 U.S. at 7-8.</ref> | ||
Revision as of 00:46, 23 September 2015
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case regarding the authority of a police officer to detain a person if the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot, and that a limited pat-down or frisk of the outer garments of the person was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Background
Facts of the case
On October 31, 1963, at about 2:30 p.m., Cleveland police detective Martin McFadden observed John W. Terry and Richard Chilton on a street corner. Officer McFadden's attention was drawn to the two men and he began to observe them. McFadden watched the two men, one at a time walk by a store window about a dozen times, then talk to a third man for a few minutes, until the third man walked away. Terry and Chilton continued to walk past the store window for another 10-12 minutes, after which they began to walk down the same street as the third man.[1]
McFadden, based 39 years experience as a police officer and on the subjects actions believed that the were casing the store to commit a robbery. He also feared that the men may be armed. Following Terry and Chilton, McFadden saw them meet with the third man again. McFadden then contacted the men, identifying himself as a police officer and asking their names. When the men were not very responsive, McFadden grabbed Terry, spun him around and patted down Terry's outer clothing.[2]
During the pat-down or frisk, McFadden felt a weapon and removed a .38 caliber revolver. He also found a revolver on Chilton, but the third man, Carl Katz, was not armed. Terry and Chilton were arrested and charged with carrying concealed weapons.[3]
Lower courts
Terry and Chilton moved to suppress the evidence, claiming that the search was made without probable cause. The prosecution claimed that the search was incident to arrest. The trial court rejected that it "would be stretching the facts beyond reasonable comprehension"[4] to claim that McFadden had probable cause to make an arrest. The court refused, however, to suppress the evidence, finding that McFadden had reasonable cause to believe that Terry and Chilton might be armed and that there was reasonable cause to warrant an investigation.[5]
The Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio denied the motion to suppress, and both Terry and Chilton waived a jury.[6] The court found the men guilty, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed,[7] and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as not presenting a constitutional question.[8] The United States Supreme Court then granted certiorari to determine if the admission of the revolvers as evidence violated the Fourth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.[9]
References
- ↑ Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1968); Louis Stokes, Representing John W. Terry, 72 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 327 (1998).
- ↑ Terry, 392 U.S. at 5-7; Stokes, 72 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. at 728, 730.
- ↑ Terry, 392 U.S. at 7-8.
- ↑ Terry, 392 U.S. at 7.
- ↑ Terry, 392 U.S. at 7-8.
- ↑ State v. Chilton, 95 Ohio Law Abs. 321 (Ct. C.P. Cuyahoga, 1964).
- ↑ State v. Terry, 214 N.E.2d 114 (Ohio Ct. App. 1966).
- ↑ Terry, 392 U.S. at 8.
- ↑ Terry, 392 U.S. at 8.