Terry+v.+Ohio

(Terry v. Ohio (Mr. Correll period 3) Alex Gola, Emily Cox The case Terry v. Ohio was a case that changed the fourth amendment. It established “stop” and “frisk” which were not in the fourth amendment. The case involves Terry, Chilton, and Katz. Two of the three men paced in front of a chain of stores stitching back and forth six times about ten times. The third man (Katz) then engaged in a conversation with the two men and then left them to their pacing. The police officer believed that they were to be “casing a job, a stick-up”. The police officer then “stopped and frisked” them and found concealed weapons on both of them. Terry was found with a .38-caliber pistol in his jacket. The Supreme Court was the back-up court when this case was argued to be violating the fourth amendment. The votes came up as 8 votes for Ohio and 1 vote against. The justice behind the dissenting argument was Justice William O. Douglas. He concluded that the “stop and frisk” was a violation of the privacy said in the fourth amendment. The weapons that were confiscated were enough evidence against Terry. The conclusion was that the search was limited in scope and designed to protect the officer’s safety incident to the investigation. Terry was sent for 3 years in jail for carrying a concealed weapon. The outcome was that the “stop and frisk” was now legal and that it does not violate the fourth amendment. Facts  ·   The police officer had never seen them in the area.  ·   Detective= McFadden  ·   The police officer found a .38-caliber pistol on Terry.  ·   Terry- sentenced to 3 years in jail. Major Question  ·   Was the search and seizures of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Decision  ·   The weapon that was seized was enough evidence against Terry. Impact  ·   Searches taken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer’s safety incident to the investigation.  ·   Allowed officers to “stop and frisk” if they find someone suspicious. Dissenting Argument  ·   William O. Douglas says the Fourth Amendment protects privacy. A “stop and frisk” is a violation of that privacy.

[] []