Terry+v.+Ohio

=
On October 31, 1963 a police officer in the Cleveland Police Department by the name of Martin Mcfadden spotted two men on a street corner (John W. Terry and Richard Chilton) and thought they were doing something suspicious. The men were walking back and forth and staring at a store window. It was stated that the were conversing throughout this time and continued to walk back and forth about the same path for about a dozen times. Another man named Katz showed up but left but the others met up wit him later on. The officer approached all three of the men and said that the thought they were "casing a job" or "doing a stick up". As a result the officer frisked all three of the men and found weapons on two of the men. Based on what the officer retrieved as evidence Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail. The question that was raised was if this search and seizure of the men violated the fourth amendment. In the 8-1 decision in the supreme court was that the officer was correct and had probable cause to search the men.======

=
The Majority argued that the Officer acted on a "hunch"/probable cause that Terry was armed with a gun and he was a threat to the officer while he was patroling downtown and investigating the suspicious behavior that he saw while watching the men. The court agreed that the police needed certain flexilbility to deal with potentially dangerous situations that may occur while they are in the streets. However they believed the police officers should not overuse that power but in this case they believed it was combination of good faith and that the exclusionary rule was not into play. Lastly the police officer only searched Terry's clothing and nothing else. Therefore, the stop and frisk search related to the concern of the officer's safety that justified why the men were stopped in the first place. Mapp v. Ohio served as a precedent that helped make a decision.======

=
"We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again." (392 U.S. 1, at 37)."To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment." (392 U.S. 1, at 38).======

=
He thought that the search was unreasonable and that the officer had no probable cause. As a result the evidence should be inadmissable and should not be used gainst Terry. He agreed that petitioner was "seized" within the meaning of the 4th amendment." But Douglass found it compelling that the search and seizure was constitutional if there was no probable cause if "(1) a crime had been committed or (2) a crime was in the process of being committed or (3) a crime was about to be committed."======