Terry v Ohio

Terry vs. Ohio

CJ302 Terry vs. Ohio

Name

Class

Date

Professor

CJ302 Terry vs. Ohio

Terry vs. Ohio was an important ruling made by the Supreme Court in 1968 concerning whether a search for weapons without probable cause by a police officer is an unreasonable search based on the rights afforded the citizen in the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case that resulted in broadened investigatory powers for the police began when a police officer approached two men acting suspiciously and the behavior alerted the police officer that they men were potentially casing a store. After searching the suspects one of the suspects was carrying a concealed weapon and was arrested.

After the petitioner, Terry, was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon he appealed his case to the Supreme Court based on a potential Fourth Amendment violation when the police officer frisked him without any probable cause. Probable cause refers to a police officer needing to have reasonable grounds before stopping and frisking a private citizen and in cases where there is a search of the person, their property, or their personal effects probable cause is required to obtain a search warrant.

After reviewing the case the majority ruled that the petitioners Fourth Amendment Right was not violated but in fact determined that a quick frisk of a criminal suspects is a reasonable search if the search is being conducted for a search of weapons that could potentially put the police officer at risk. The Supreme Court majority found that if the police officer was restricted in the field and unable to perform a frisk of a criminal suspect for their personal safety that the officer would in fact be unduly burdened (Siggins, 2002). What this means is the police officer has the right to frisk the suspect for safety purposes but not to seize contraband.

Because police officers face grave danger in the field they are afforded a certain level of discretion. Part of this discretion involves identifying criminal suspects while in the field. In order to safely determine if the suspect is engaged in criminal behavior police officers have been afforded the discretion to search these suspects for weapons. The problem is the police officer has to have a reasonable belief that the suspects are armed with a weapon and instead the Terry stop has become a common aspect of every brief detention.

The challenge is that police officers use the Terry stop to identify suspects instead of identifying suspects and then making a Terry stop. For example a suspect may be pulled over for a burned out taillight but then searched by the police based on reasonable suspicion. Minor traffic violations should not be considered a reasonable cause to search a suspect. In the case that led to the police officer being allowed to frisk suspects the police officer had a reasonable suspicion that the offenders where engaging in criminal behavior but when an individual is stopped for a minor traffic violation there is no reasonable suspicion to search and this act is a blatant violation of the citizens n Fourth Amendment Rights.

The dissenting opinion by Justice Douglas was based on the belief dissented, reasoning that the majority’s holding would grant powers to officers to authorize a search and seizure that even a magistrate would not possess (Butler, 2009). What this means is the police officer would now have major leeway to search citizens without any recourse if contraband is found during this search and then used against the defendant in a court of law. The police will now have a greater authority without the authorization of a judge to search the private persons and property of the citizen. This will extend their power of discretion and instead of police applying probable cause as required in the constitution and the citizen will lose their privilege to privacy.

Allowing searches and seizures on less than probable cause was a serious blow to Fourth Amendment freedoms of the citizen and has since resulted in what the dissenting justice predicted which has been an increased tension with minority communities as they have become the main focus of the Terry Stop. By allowing police to conduct random search based on a perceived suspicion or little or no reasonable cause the minority has been subject to intense scrutiny in the police known as racial profile practices. Instead of the citizen being afforded their guaranteed right against unreasonable intrusion by the government these intrusion have now become common place.

Douglas dissenting opinion on the case of Terry was insightful and obviously recognized the potential constitutional threat this ruling would result in for member of society. Police officers now have more power and authority than the state when they can pick and chose the members of society that will be subject to their scrutiny. Because probable cause is an essential aspect of the legal search the majority should have adopted Douglas opinion and save the criminal justice system endless challenges based on racial profiling and the obvious racial disparities in the criminal justice system.

The Warren Court granted the police so many powers and created a dangerous precedent to Fourth Amendment freedoms because they determined there needs to be a heightened protection and preservation of public safety from potential criminal activity for police officers in the field. The potential threat to the Fourth Amendment was disregarded in the decision making process in favor of broadening the powers of the police.

References

Butler, P. (2009). A Long Step Down the Totalitarian Path: Justice Douglas’s Dissent in Terry

Vs. Ohio. Retrieved February 2, 2012 from

http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/2009%20Butler.pdf

Siggins, P. (2002). Racial Profiling in an Age of Terrorism. Retrieved February 2, 2012 from

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/profiling.html