Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Background
On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who brought 39 years of law enforcement experience to the job, observed three men behaving suspiciously as they paced back and forth in front of a jewelry store located on Euclid Avenue.
Concerned that the men were planning a robbery and possibly armed, McFadden identified himself as a police officer and inquired about their names. When the men merely mumbled their responses, McFadden conducted a frisk, discovering a pistol in John W. Terry’s overcoat pocket and a revolver in Richard Chilton’s coat pocket.
The unarmed third man, Katz, was noted in the incident where McFadden apprehended and charged Terry and Chilton for carrying concealed weapons. Judge Bernard Friedman of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court subsequently found the defendants guilty, deeming that the suspicious behavior displayed by the men, coupled with McFadden’s genuine concern for his safety, justified the decision to conduct a frisk. This ruling was later upheld by the appeals court. In 1967, Terry brought the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In June 1968, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and set a precedent that allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals without probable cause for an arrest, providing that the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk.
Significantly, Terry does not provide blanket authority to intrude on an individual’s right to be left alone, nor does it allow such intrusion based on a police offers inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur or is in progress.
However, it does radically expand police authority to investigate crimes where there is a reasonable basis for suspicion.
More in depth case detail can also be read here
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
Recent
Michigan Problem-Solving Courts Granted Nearly $19 Million
"Data show these programs strengthen communities by reducing crime, boosting employment"LANSING, MI, October 24, 2024 (Substance Abuse Prevention Month) – The Michigan Supreme Court announces that the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO) has awarded $18,823,910...
Warrantless Searches in Michigan
I don't need a warrant for that...In Michigan, as in the rest of the United States, the Fourth Amendment of the fading Constitution provides individuals with protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. Generally, this means that police...
Other Articles
No Results Found
The page you requested could not be found. Try refining your search, or use the navigation above to locate the post.