lOMoARcPSD|22671317
One Page Assignment 4 - Presley
Criminal Justice Research and Writing (Liberty
University)
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
TERRY V. OHIO CASE
BRIEF
1
Terry v. Ohio Case
Brief Zachary Cushman
Liberty University
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
TERRY V. OHIO CASE
BRIEF
2
Abstract
In the Terry v. Ohio (1968) case, John Terry was subjected to a “stop-and-frisk” procedure
where he was found to be in possession of a gun. The Supreme Court ruled that this act was not
in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy which references the executions of
searches and seizures. The “stop” was conducted due to the officer having the belief that the
suspect was engaged in illegal activities. The “frisk”, on the other hand, was conducted because
the officer had a reasonable cause to believe that the suspect was armed and in turn patted him
down for personal protection. The Supreme Court sided with the arguments of the state of Ohio
and the Cleveland police. A “stop-and-frisk” ruling was made from the Court’s decision, which
derived from a “search incident to a lawful arrest” ruling in the Arizona v. Gant case, noting that
a “search incident to a lawful arrest” would require a clearer and more definite definition of
probable cause to conduct an arrest or a seizure.
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
TERRY V. OHIO CASE
BRIEF
3
Terry v. Ohio Case
Brief Facts
Detective McFadden, who worked for Cleveland Police Department, was patrolling on a
downtown area which he had been doing for a handful of years when he observed two suspicious
strangers (John Terry and Richard Chilton) standing on a street corner. He observed them
walking back and forth following an identical route, stopping to stare in the same store window,
a total of around 24 times while alternating positions. They would then meet back at the street
corner after each pass. They were joined by a third person (Katz) during one of these meetings,
after which he quickly left. McFadden followed these men once they left and witnessed them
rejoining Katz in front of a store because he suspected them of planning a stick-up job. He
proceeded to approach them, ask their names, and identify himself. After they mumbled
something under their breath, McFadden turned Terry around and began to pat down the outside
of his clothes. He felt a pistol in Terry’s overcoat pocket but wasn’t able to remove it without
calling the three into the store. He ordered the three to face the wall and place their hands over
their heads and removed Terry’s overcoat to reveal a revolver. He then decided to pat Chilton
and Katz and found a revolver in Chilton’s overcoat pocket. McFadden did not search under
Katz’s outer garments because he did not feel anything that could’ve been a weapon. “The
officer testified that he only patted the men down to see whether they had weapons and that he
did not put his hands beneath the outer garments of either Terry or Chilton until he felt their
guns.” Terry
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 7 (1968). The three were then taken to the police station and Terry, as well as
Chilton, was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. The defense tried to suppress the
weapons and, although the trial court rejected the theory that the gun’s seizure had been done
during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied this motion and continued to admit
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
TERRY V. OHIO CASE
BRIEF
4
the weapons as evidence due to the fact that the officer had a reasonable cause to believe Terry
and Chilton were being suspicious, the interrogation was warranted, and the officer, to protect
himself, had the right to pat their outerwear down with having reasonable suspicion of them
being armed.
Issue
Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth
Amendment?
Holding
No. If an officer has reasonable suspicion that they or the public could be in danger they
have the right to pat someone down on the outside of their clothes. “Such a search is a reasonable
search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in
evidence against the person from whom they were taken.” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 31 (1968).
Judgment
We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence
against him. At the time he seized the petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer
McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous,
and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to
discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. Terry v. Ohio,
392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968).
Rationale
If a police officer sees suspicious activities which causes them to have a reasonable
concern that criminal activity may occur and/or that the suspects they are dealing with could be
armed and dangerous, if they identify themselves as an officer and they do not compromise that
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
TERRY V. OHIO CASE
BRIEF
5
suspicion, they have the right, for their personal protection and the production of others in a
relative area, to conduct a pat-down of the outer clothing to try and find potentially harmful
objects.
Concurring Opinions
Justice white states the constitution does not restrict an officer from asking questions to
anyone on the streets and the subject questioned has the right to deny questioning and keep on
his way. Justice Harlan “fills in gaps” due to this case potentially serving as future guidelines for
law enforcement and courts as this field develops.
Dissenting Opinions
Justice Douglas claims there is no basis for probable cause for the crime of carrying a
concealed weapon but there was a basis for probable cause for loitering.
lOMoARcPSD|22671317
TERRY V. OHIO CASE
BRIEF
6
References
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
