Terry Vs Ohio Essay

Total Length: 641 words ( 2 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 1

Page 1 of 2

Terry v. Ohio case, providing information on the concerned parties, case facts, previous proceedings, arguments and issues, court decision and rationale for the decision.



Parties Involved



The People of the State of Ohio and John W. Terry



Facts



Martin Mcfadden, a law enforcement official, saw the complainant engaged in a long, serious conversation with a second man, on a quiet street corner whilst constantly pacing along the street and looking into one of the shops there, from time to time. They were subsequently approached by a third individual who conversed with them before leading them along the street. From the looks of it, the official surmised that the three men might be up to no good, and potentially planning a shop burglary. Hence, he decided upon grilling them, and considering their suspicious conduct, also decided upon swiftly frisking all three prior to interrogation (Samaha, 2012). The search generated a concealed gun, with the end result being a suit against the complainant for having, on his person, a hidden weapon. The officer claimed all he did was pat the three men down for weapons, and certainly didn't search beneath their outer clothing.




Prior Proceedings



None



Issue



The basic issue in this case is whether or not weapon frisking without likely cause for detention may be classified as an unwarranted search, according to the Constitutional Amendment IV (Samaha, 2012).



Arguments



Prior to trial commencement, the accused men attempted to quash the official's evidence, dubbing it as "inadmissible" since it was uncovered through an unauthorized frisking (Samaha, 2012). They asserted that the official (i.e., Mcfadden) lacked both a probable cause for detention and a search warrant. However, their motion was denied.



Holdings



The Supreme Court held that, in spite of a lack of probable cause for apprehension, the complainant's frisking, which gleaned a concealed gun, satisfied Amendment IV conditions. Drawing from experience, Mcfadden had a logical and legitimate suspicion regarding Terry and team's nefarious plans, and believed the complainant threatened society; this justifies the official's decision of stopping and patting down the men and consequently makes the evidence generated "admissible" at trial (Samaha, 2012). The court essentially maintained that, in the event law enforcement officials notice.....

Show More ⇣


     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


References


Samaha, J. (2012). Criminal Procedure (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?id=K0VzsbrFv7oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=criminal+procedure&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRnqyi7I7QAhXQZiYKHRFpAZ0Q6AEINTAA#v=onepage&q=criminal%20procedure&f=f

sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Terry Vs Ohio" (2016, November 06) Retrieved March 29, 2024, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/terry-vs-ohio-essay

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Terry Vs Ohio" 06 November 2016. Web.29 March. 2024. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/terry-vs-ohio-essay>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Terry Vs Ohio", 06 November 2016, Accessed.29 March. 2024,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/terry-vs-ohio-essay