Terry Vs Ohio Case Study

At 2:30 pm in downtown Cleveland Ohio officer McFadden noticed 2 black males on a corner taking turns walking back and forth observing two stores. After 10 to 12 minutes a third man, white male, came by and talked with the other two. After a couple of minutes one man left and went west. Another couple of minutes later the other two left in the same direction. As the men walk around the corner the police officer follows. The officer approached the men and stated that he was an officer and asked their names. They mumbled something and at this point the officer reached out and spun terry around and patted him down. The officer felt what might have been the handle of a gun, so he tried to remove the gun but could not. The officer then took the coat off the man and retrieved the gun. He ordered all three in the store and told them they were under arrest and told the store personnel to “order the wagon”. Officer McFadden ordered the men against the wall when he other searched Chilton and found a revolver. He then searched Katz and found nothing.

The men are then taken to the police station and booked for investigation. The next day the men were

interrogated and then charged for caring a concealed weapon. After being charged the defendant Mr. Terry filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The motion was overruled and the trial continued with a benched jury and the defendant was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The case then went to the Supreme Court were they discussed whether the officer was in violation of the 4th amendment.
During the case the court needed to figure out if the officer actually had probable cause and the right to search the men. Some tried to say that the officer didn’t have enough if any experience witnessing a stick up. The officer had never been involved with or witnessed that type of crime. Then the question arose, if you had no experience what made you think that they were casing the place? Officer McFadden was acting on intuition. Intuition, to some, may not be enough “evidence”, but in this case it was not intuition alone. The officer asked the men their names and did not get a clear response. At this point he felt the need to pat terry down to prevent harm from himself and the others around him. The court wanted to be clear as to why the officer felt like the men were armed. In this case one can say if you plan rob or stick up a place one would be armed. So the officer acted in a reasonable way.
For this case there was no need for a warrant before search. The fourth amendment says that person cannot be arrested without probable cause. The officer’s cause was he own intuition, which alone gave him the right to proceed with his search. In addition to the search the court wanted to make sure that the officer did not make a premature arrest. They decided that is was a temporary detain and that the arrest actually happened after the retrieval of the weapons.
Officer McFadden acted as any other police officer would, he did not act out of the ordinary means of the situation. He had the right to investigate, interrogate and arrest.
In this case the fourth amendment was involved and the main focus. Part of fourth amendment states that “We have the right to be secure in our "persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures”. For terry v. Ohio, was the search unreasonable? No, the search was within reason of trying to investigate and interrogate 3 men of suspicious actions. Officer McFadden seizure was within reason of the law. He did not do a depth search of the suspects. He patted Terry down on the outside of his clothing before noticing a weapon which then he proceeded to take off the coat to do a more in-depth search. Also officer McFadden was following normal police protocol. He stated that he was a police officer and asked the men their name. Since the men did not clearly respond, they mumbled, officer McFadden needed to take precautions to make sure that he wouldn’t get hurt. McFadden again acted within the law and did not violate terry’s rights.
Next part of the amendment say "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation” for this case there was no need for a warrant. Not every case needs a warrant and in this one it didn’t. The officer did not pat down Mr. Terry to collect evidence, he did it to disarm Mr. Terry in fear that he was armed. Once he saw that he was, it was only smart to continue the search. The evidence was not taken to have as evidence but for safety purpose. So I agree that this case was reviewed with the intent to follow the fourth amendment.
In a decision with an 8-to-1 vote the court decided that the action by the officer was reasonable with the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court did not think that officer McFadden went against Terry and the other men’s rights. They believe that the officer had the right to ask the men questions. He had to take in to consideration that it was 1 officer to 3 young men. These three men had on large coats that could conceal weapons. So with this thought officer McFadden had the right to pat them down with belief that they were armed. Officer McFadden had the right to arrest and seize the men after the first pat down resulted in finding a hand gun and then with the second a revolver. Officer McFadden acted off of probable cause, so in these circumstances, he had right to search and confiscate the weapons which will be used as evidence.
The stop and frisk issue in New York is very similar to the terry v.

Ohio case. Since the Supreme Court ruled that you only need “reasonable suspicion”, now the policer really don’t have to have any real reason to stop and frisk someone. What actually is “reasonable suspicion”? This has opened so many doors to more problems like racial profiling and many more. How do you know what reasonable suspicion is? There are no guidelines set in place to what can be reasonably suspicious. Just stopping and frisking people is in violation of the fourth amendment. With stop and frisk law more black and Latino men are stopped and frisk because of “reasonable suspicion”. You can’t go around stopping and frisking everyone just because they might do something. This stop and frisk law can cause more cases like Travon Martin in

Florida.
The stop and frisk law was supposed to cut down on crime but studies show that it has. According to the NYPD’s own reports: in 2002, New Yorkers were stopped by the police 97,296 times. 80,176 were totally innocent (82 percent). 80,176 people were innocent, and that could have been the same amount of law suits for violation of the fourth amendment. This also shows that the police were wrong 82% of the time. A high percentage to a policy that does not work. “Weapons are recovered in roughly one in 1,000 stop-and-frisks…” according to G. Martin in The New York times. In March 2015, NYPD issued new stop and frisk rules stating: you cannot stop and frisk based on race gender or someone was in a broadly defined "high-crime area”. I’m sure this new rule will not help and it is still I violation on the fourth amendment.
An example of this policy not working and similar case to Terry v. Ohio, is Blair v. City of New York. Blair a Jamaican man was walking home after parking his car was stopped frisked and question by the police for no reason. Blair had no criminal record and just because after they were done patting him done, Blair put his hands down. The officer placed him in jail and didn’t let him go until Blair told them that he was a reporter of the New York post. The police had no probable cause no real reasonable suspicion and no right to stop this man. They violated his fourth amendment and the case was later settled.
A sixteen-year-old juvenile who was stopped, frisked, and arrested would be handled by the police and court differently than an adult. First it will begin with focus on delinquency and a special category of “status offenses”. They have limited rights against unreasonable searches and have the right against self-incrimination. The court do not look at the case as guilty or innocent until proven, they look at what is best for the child. Delinquent juveniles may be brought to the police or juvenile court authorities through arrest or through the filing of a juvenile petition by an aggrieved party. Most of these come from school administrators, stores managers, neighbors and other people that may have come in to contact with the juvenile. Parents who have lost control of the teens will call for a petition as well.
Next is the detention hearing, where intake officers choose alternate sentencing or dismiss some or all of the charges. The goal of the system to protect the juvenile and help them with treatment which they have rights to. Juveniles who are “sentenced” may be sent to job-training programs like vocational schools. Some go to mental health facilities to get proper treatment, some problems are health related. They also have drug-treatment programs, educational counseling, and other community services agencies that can help the juvenile get on the right track. After the programs are done the juveniles are released to parental custody.
A preliminary hearing may be held in conjunction with the detention hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to determine if there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the acts. If it is still so that the juvenile did commit said act, they still may be offered diversionary options. The options are improvement period or probation with adjudication. These alternatives are usually one-year long. The juvenile must avoid legal difficulties, attend school, and obey his or her parents. If they complete the year and follow the rules, their charges may be dropped at the end of the informal probationary period.
Another hearing is called the transfer hearing, which is for more serious cases. They may transfer the hearing to an adult court at the prosecuting attorney’s request. Transfer hearings take place in juvenile court. They focus on whether transfer statutes apply to the case and whether the juvenile is open to treatment available through the juvenile justice system. An example of an exception where statutes mandate transfer is in a case of first-degree murder.
Then you have adjudicatory hearing. This hearing is the fact-finding process where the juvenile court determines if there is enough evidence to sustain the allegations in a petition. Adjudicatory hearing are similar to adult trials but do have differences. Juvenile hearings are not open to the public or media like adult trials are. There is an emphasis on privacy to prevent juveniles from being negatively labeled by the community.
Juvenile records are sealed and may at some point be destroyed at a specified age
Lastly, briefly describe how a sixteen-year-old juvenile who was stopped, frisked, and arrested would be handled by the police and court as his or her case is processed. Pay particular attention to the "language" of the system.