Terry v. Ohio - Summary of case PDF

Preview

Summary

Summary of case...

Description

Case: Terry vs. Ohio Facts: An officer was patrolling near shops on a street called Euclid Avenue when he became suspicious of two men who had been conversing near a store. Suspecting that the men were up to something, the officer continued to watch them from a distance. As time went on, the two men began acting more suspicious, each one leaving for a short while and then returning to glance inside the store. After repeatedly doing this, another person walked up to the two men and spoke with them. After the third man left, the others began to walk away as well and the officer went to confront them, believing that they were planning on robbing the store. He identified himself as a police officer and after the men mumbled to him in response, he turned them around and proceeded to pat them down. After feeling a gun in Terry’s pocket but being unable to remove it, the officer ordered them inside the store and removed Terry’s jacket to retrieve the weapon. Issue: Did what the officer do constitute an unreasonable search? Holding: No, what the officer did, did not constitute an unreasonable search. Reasoning: The problem with this case was not determining if Terry was subject to Fourth Amendment protection: in this case, he was. The main issue in the case was determining if the search which occurred was justified or reasonable. The court ruled that the safety of the general public and the need to prevent crime overruled Terry’s Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure.

Case: Illinois v. Wardlow Facts: Two uniformed officers were driving in an area known for drug trafficking. One of the officers observed the defendant standing next to a building in the area and holding a bag, the contents of which could not be observed. After seeing the officers, the defendant began to run. One of the officers exited the vehicle and pursued the defendant, stopping him and performing a pat-down search. The officer squeezed the bag and noticed an object which felt like it could be a gun. He opened the bag and discovered that the contents consisted of a gun with live ammunition. Issue: Did the fact that the defendant ran away from officers mean that the officers had enough reasonable suspicion of a crime? Holding: Yes, the initial IL Supreme Court decision was reversed. The defendant’s running away was enough to grant reasonable suspicion of a crime. Reasoning: It was important to consider both the place in which the defendant was as well as the fact that the defendant ran away upon the sighting of police officers, taken together. Additionally, the Terry decision provided the precedent upon which to establish that reasonably suspicious individuals who may in actuality be innocent can still be subject to stop-and-frisk procedures.

Case: United States vs. Weaver

Facts: A DEA agent and two detectives were awaiting a flight from Los Angeles when they spotted a “roughly dressed” man leaving the flight with two bags walking rapidly from the plane to a taxi. Due to these factors, along with his knowledge that gangs often smuggled drugs from Los Angeles, the DEA agent became suspicious of the man. The officers approached the defendant and questioned him as to his business there, and he explained that he was searching for his sister, looking nervous as he did so. The defendant was unable to provide any ticket or form of identification upon questioning. The DEA agent asked to search the defendant’s bags and the defendant consented, but then revoked consent saying that the agent needed a warrant, walking away with his bags. The DEA agent held the bags there and went to obtain a search warrant. The defendant pulled some items out of the bag and claimed he had no drugs but would not allow the officers to look fully into the bags, attempting once again to leave. The DEA agent told the defendant that he would still seize the bags, but the defendant could keep necessary items, at which time the defendant attempted to leave with both bags. The DEA agent then attempted to grab one of the bags, and the defendant hit his hand. Subsequently, the DEA agent placed the defendant under arrest and patted him down, finding contraband on his person. He then obtained a warrant to search the bags, finding more contraband. Issue: Did the officers have enough of a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaging in criminal activity? Holding: Yes, the officers had enough of a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaging in criminal activity. Reasoning: Race alone cannot be the determining factor in whether or not a search is conducted because of reasonable suspicion. However, the DEA agent had knowledge that members of the Crips and Bloods were often young, black, roughly dressed men and that drug movement often followed the pattern seen with the defendant’s behavior. These factors taken together were enough to pass the reasonable suspicion standard.

Case: Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial District Facts: A caller told police that there had been an assault. When the assigned officer went to the scene, he approached the man and asked for identification. After several attempts at obtaining identification from the man and refusals each time, the officer placed the man under arrest. Issue: Did Hiibel’s arrest after refusing to provide identification violate his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights? Holding: No, the arrest for failing to provide identification did not violate Hiibel’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. Reasoning: The arresting officer was justified in asking for identification because he had reasonable suspicion that a crime had occurred. When the defendant refused to provide his identification, at that point he was preventing the officer from carrying out his investigation of the crime for which he was suspected, which is considered an offense for which someone can be arrested....