In Terry v. Ohio (1968), Terry and two other men were noticed by police officers to be hanging around a store, and seemed to possibly be “casing a job.” They were afraid the men might be getting ready to rob the store, due to their appearance and their actions. An officer stopped the men and frisked them. They found guns on them, and arrested them (Oyez, n.d.). The controversy in this case was did the search and seizure of Terry and the men he was with violate the Fourth Amendment? This case tried to determine the role of the Fourth Amendment when police are investigating suspicious circumstances on the street, and when there is probable cause to search someone that is displaying questionable behavior (Justia, n.d.). The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search …show more content…
and seizure that the Fourth Amendment provides. The question in Terry v. Ohio was whether or not the officers had probable cause to stop a person who had not committed a crime, search them for a weapon, and upon finding a weapon after a questionable search, could that weapon be used against him in court. The case tried to answer these questions in light of the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment. The court held in this case that the search and seizure of Terry was reasonable, based on the feeling that the officer had that there was suspicious behavior exhibited by the men. The court felt that any reasonably prudent man would have felt that Terry was armed and could have potentially been a threat to the officer (Oyez, n.d.). In this case, the search was limited to looking for a weapon. The officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they searched Terry because it was a warranted search based on the suspicious behavior that was observed by the officers over a course of time. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and was sentenced to three years in jail (Oyez, n.d.). Stop and Frisk In Terry v. Ohio, there is a “stop and frisk” issue. Stop and frisk is a procedure performed by a police officer if he is suspicious of an individual that he feels may be intending to commit a crime. The officer will stop them, question them, and then pat down their outer clothing to search for a weapon. In Terry, the officers were suspicious of the gentlemen hanging around the outside of a store, walking by several times, as if casing the place. Once the officers felt that there was reason to believe that the men could be carrying weapons, they were stopped, questioned, and then searched. The important part to be considered in Terry is that there must be a reason that the officer can describe, or articulate to the court as to why a person was stopped, and what specific suspicious behavior they exhibited. There cannot be arbitrary stops because the officer feels like the person should be frisked, there must be a valid reason. The Fourth Amendment would then be violated without a sufficient, and sound reason for the frisk (Lemieux, 2013). Recently in New York, there has been an issue with Mayor Bloomberg’s stop and frisk policy. It has been deemed unconstitutional because it seems that people are arbitrarily being stopped by officers without a sound reason (Lemieux, 2013). There have been high numbers of minorities being stopped and frisked, some have described it as constituting racial profiling. The distinction between Mayor Bloomberg’s stop and frisk policy and the decision in Terry that officers can arbitrarily stop individuals that are exhibiting suspicious behavior is that there must be a very clear, sound reason for the stop. A stop must be able to pass the reasonable person standard which means that any reasonable person would have considered the behavior to be suspicious as well. Racial profiling would be against the Fourth Amendment, and it would be considered an unreasonable search and seizure. Juvenile Justice If a sixteen-year-old juvenile was stopped, frisked, and arrested, his case will be handled by the juvenile court, which has jurisdiction over juvenile under the age of 17. Juvenile cases are handled a little different, with different vocabulary as well to help lessen the impact of having to go through the criminal process (SUO, 2016). The court system treats them as if they can be rehabilitated which means that the punishment they receive will have a focus of rehabilitation and helping the offender, and less of a focus on punishment (South University Online, 2016). Instead of telling the juvenile that he is being arrested, he will be told that he is being detained. There will be a detention hearing which allows the officer to decide if the juvenile will be detained, or will his parents be contacted, the juvenile will be in the custody of his parents who promise to bring him back to court. A preliminary hearing will often be held alongside a detention hearing. During a preliminary hearing, it will be determined if there is enough evidence to determine that the juvenile could have committed the act that he is being accused of committing (Schmalleger, 2013). A juvenile case is resolved through a hearing, and not a trial. Therefore, his case will not be heard by a jury. However, he is still entitled to have an attorney. Once his case is resolved, he will go through a dispositional hearing rather than being told he is being sentenced. If the juvenile is found guilty, he will be considered an adjudicated delinquent; likewise, the juvenile will not be considered a criminal, he will be considered a delinquent child (SUO, 2016). After the dispositional hearing, the juvenile will remain in the custody of the state until he reaches the age of majority (Michon, n.d.). His punishment may not be confinement in jail, it could be probation, counseling, or community service. If a juvenile commits a crime serious enough such as rape, or murder, his case could be transferred to the adult court. If this should happen, his case will be handled just like an adult case, where he may have to face a jury, and spend time in prison. In conclusion, Terry v.
Ohio was a landmark case that helped give officers the power they need to stop and search (frisk) an individual(s) that is exhibiting suspicious behavior that may put a community at risk of a crime. If the officer can articulate a clear, and sound reason why he stopped and frisked the individual, the stop is considered legally valid and any evidence that was obtained will be admitted to the court. On the contrary, any stop and frisk policies that are administered without having a clear, sound reason for stopping an individual, and may resemble racial profiling, is unconstitutional, and is not considered legally valid and any evidence obtained will not be allowed into the court. Juvenile cases are handled very differently from adult cases in court, and the focus of juvenile cases is rehabilitation, whereas, the focus of adult cases is on punishment. The court has long believed that juveniles are still developing, and they should be able to be rehabilitated with the right help. Therefore, instead of spending time in jail, many juveniles receive an alternative punishment such as probation, community service, or
counseling.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
This case is about Scott Randolph, who’s home was searched without a warrant. Due to this “corrupted” search, police ended up finding cocaine in his home. As a matter of fact both Randolph and his wife Janet Randolph were present during the search, it’s stated that Randolph’s wife gave permission to search the house. However Randolph denied to give that consistent, but police believed that the wife’s permission was all they needed. After the encounter with the drugs, Randolph was arrested for drug possession. This case was taken to trail and both the appellate court and Georgie Supreme court believed that the search of Randolph's home was unconstitutional.
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Terry v. Ohio was in 1968 it had a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the fourth amendment prohibition on the unreasonable search and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the streets and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer had a reasonable suspicion of that person had commit a crime in which he can be belief that the person may have a weapons that can be dangerous to a police officer.
The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Mapp v. Ohio Supreme Court Case in 1961 is historically significant as it was a turning point that changed our legal system by extending the exclusionary rule that existed at the federal level to include state courts. The exclusionary rule prevents the use of evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure, without a warrant, to be use against the defendant in court. Before this case, each state decided whether to adopt the exclusionary rule. At the time of this case, twenty-four states were not using the exclusionary rule. The decision of this case meant that all stated needed to comply with the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Mapp v. Ohio is an important case as
The 4th amendment provides citizens protections from unreasonable searches and seizures from law enforcement. Search and seizure cases are governed by the 4th amendment and case law. The United States Supreme Court has crafted exceptions to the 4th amendment where law enforcement would ordinarily need to get a warrant to conduct a search. One of the exceptions to the warrant requirement falls under vehicle stops. Law enforcement can search a vehicle incident to an individual’s arrest if the individual unsecured by the police and is in reaching distance of the passenger compartment. Disjunctive to the first exception a warrantless search can be conducted if there is reasonable belief
After the Civil War, there were some rules created to protect people’s right to due process of law. These rules give the opportunity to criminals to be protected in a legal way, which the police cannot control. The Fourth Amendment protects the criminal from being searched or seized. In the film, the police are not allowed to search for a criminal to obtain evidence. Moreover, police cannot detain a person without proper justification.
The 4th amendment protects people from being searched or having their belongings taken away without any good reason. The 4th amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. For many years prior to the ratifiation, people were smuggling goods because of the Stamp Act; in response Great Britain passed the writs of assistance so British guards could search someone’s house when they don’t have a good reason to. This amendment gave people the right to privacy. “Our answer to the question of what policy must do before searching a cellphone seized incident to an arrest is accordingly simple - get a warrant.” This was addressed to officers searching people’s houses and taking things without having a proper reason. I find
The New York City Police Department enacted a stop and frisk program was enacted to ensure the safety of pedestrians and the safety of the entire city. Stop and frisk is a practice which police officers stop and question hundreds of thousands of pedestrians annually, and frisk them for weapons and other contraband. Those who are found to be carrying any weapons or illegal substances are placed under arrest, taken to the station for booking, and if needed given a summons to appear in front of a judge at a later date. The NYPD’s rules for stop and frisk are based on the United States Supreme Courts decision in Terry v. Ohio. The ruling in Terry v. Ohio held that search and seizure, under the Fourth Amendment, is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a “reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime” and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous”, an arrest is justified (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, at 30).
The stop-and-frisk policy could be considered a big controversy facing New York in recent times. The whole concept behind this stopping-and-frisking is the police officer, with reasonable suspicion of some crime committed or about to be committed, stops a pedestrian, questions them, then if needed frisks the person. This policy started gaining public attention back in 1968 from the Terry v. Ohio case. A police officer saw the three men casing a store and he believed they were going to rob the store; this led to him stopping and frisking them. After frisking them, he found a pistol and took the weapon from the men. The men then cried foul and claimed they were unconstitutionally targeted and frisked.
The amendment that raises my own eye is the Search and Seizures Clause of the Fourth Amendment. Like most of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment has its origins in 17th and 18th century, English common law. Unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment's origins can be traced precisely it arose out of a strong public reaction to three cases from the 1760s, two decided in England and one in the colonies. Two cases from England, “Entick vs. Carrington” and “Wilkes vs. Wood”, involved plaintiffs who produced pamphlets criticizing the government. During the arresting, officials seized books and papers from the plaintiff’s property. A court agreed that the officers’ actions constituted trespassing. The third case occurred within the colonies and involved “writs of assistance,” which permitted officials to search for smuggled goods without specify which house or what goods.