Terry v. Ohio - Case Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Justin Virzi 32812531 ●

●

●

●

●

Terry v Ohio (1968) Facts: ○ Parties: ■ Petitioner: John W. Terry ■ Defendant: State of Ohio (Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden) ○ Terry and two other men were observed by an undercover policeman. ○ The officer believed that there was an armed robbery in progress. ○ The officer stopped and searched the three men, finding firearms on two of them. ○ Terry was convicted for possession a concealed weapon. ○ A “seizure” is whenever an officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away. ○ A “search” is whenever officer makes careful exploration of outer surfaces of person's clothing in attempt to find weapon. Procedural Posture: ○ The Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, overruled pretrial motion to suppress and rendered judgment, and defendant appealed. ○ The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District affirmed. ○ Ohio Supreme Court dismissed an appeal on ground that no substantial constitutional question was involved. ○ United States Supreme Court grants Writ of Certiorari. Issue ○ Were the Petitioners’ Fourth Amendment rights to personal security violated by an unreasonable search and seizure? (NO) Holding: ○ The scope of the search must be ‘strictly tied to and justified by’ the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible. Rationale: ○ 8-1 Supreme Court Decision ○ Evidence will be inadmissible if it was discovered by means of seizure and search which were not reasonably related in scope to justification for their initiation. The Fourteenth Amendment also protects “people, not places” and therefore applies to citizens on the street as well as at home. The Fourth amendment also applies to stop and frisk procedures, which was followed in this case. ○ Whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. ○ Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court concluded that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation. ○ Where an office is warranted in his circumstances that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person he believes to be armed and or dangerous....