M04 Assignment - IRAC Brief Paper
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ivy Tech Community College, Indianapolis *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
102
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by AgentGull3714
Erica Stiening LEGS 102
Terry v. Ohio
Case Brief
Case: Terry v. Ohio
, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)
Case:
Terry v. Ohio
, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)
Facts:
Cleveland detective McFadden witnessed Petitioner and another male scoping out a store window
walking back and forth 24 times. Detective began following them when he saw them met up with
the third male. Detective identified himself and asked their names. The men mumbled something
which led detective to give petitioner a pat down. Detective felt a gun during the pat down. The
three men were taken to the station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed
weapons. Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the weapons.
Procedural History:
Petitioner filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the weapons, which was denied by the court.
Petitioner filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio. Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the trial
court’s decision. Issues:
Does the Fourth Amendment protect the petitioner from a police officer stopping and preforming a
search based on suspicion? Rules:
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”, stop and frisks are treated
the same as search and seizures.
Katz v. United States
, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967): The police
must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the
warrant procedure.
Warden v. Hayden
, 387 U.S. 294, 310, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1652 (1967): The scope of the search must be
'strictly tied to and justified by' the circumstances which rendered its initiation permissible.
Analysis:
Fourth Amendment: The Fourth Amendment was looked at to clarify that citizens are protected from
Erica Stiening LEGS 102
unreasonable search and seizures. The Fourth Amendment also says “stop and frisks” are held to the same
standards. Katz v. United States
, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 511, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967): The Katz case
determined whenever practicable a search warrant must be obtained prior to performing the search.
This case is related to Terry v. Ohio
, because “whenever practicable” is the primary issue. An
officer does not need to wait to perform a search and seizure if it is unsafe to do so. This is similar to
Warden v. Hayden
case, see below. Warden v. Hayden
, 387 U.S. 294, 310, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 1652 (1967): Warden v. Hayden
says that the
only time it is okay to perform a search and seizure without a warrant, is when the officer or public
is in danger. McFadden witnessed suspicious activity and believed an armed robbery was likely to
occur. Therefore, he felt that he and others were in danger. The Warden case also says that evidence
obtained during a search and seizure without a warrant is not admissible in court unless the search
and seizure took place when it was required to do so due to a safety issue. It was also determined
that the search and seizure must be performed with what was necessary for protection. This relates
to McFadden and plaintiff because McFadden only gave a pat down, then removed the weapons
upon feeling them. Conclusion: After looking at all the facts of the Terry v. Ohio
case, the court determined that McFadden’s actions were
justifiable making the evidence admissible in court. This judgement is affirmed.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help