29 Mar 2009
The case of John W. TERRY, Petitioner, v. State of Ohio was argued in 1967 and it was decided in 1968.
The case describes the role of the Forth Amendment during policemen’s examining the citizens on the street.
Assertion of the case. The petitioner Terry stated that the search and seize of his weapon was realized in an illegal way according to the Forth Amendment. He also argued that the court denied the suggestion to hold back the weapons and admitted it as evidence.
Details of the case. An officer (McFadden) observed two men on a street corner (petitioner and Chilton). One paced up to a store window, glance inside, and spoke to another man. This course of action was repeated during some period. The suspected men talked with a third man (Katz). After it they accompanied him up the street. The officer thought the suspects were going to rob that store. So the officer came up to the three men to ask their names. The men did not answer clearly, just murmured something. At that moment the officer turned petitioner around. He probed the petitioner’s outside clothing. The officer found in his pocket a pistol. The officer took away petitioner’s overcoat and pulled out a revolver. In order to check others the officer ordered the three to turn to the wall and to move up their hands. He examined the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and found another revolver in Chilton’s overcoat pocket. The three were driven to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were accused of carrying concealed weapons. The defense of the three petitioned to eliminate this weapon from evidence. The court refused the petition to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence.
Issue of the case was whether the search and seizure of Terry and Chilton was in violation of the Fourth Amendment or it was held to it.
Conclusion. The Court validate that the officer’s search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It confirmed that the weapons seized could be brought in evidence against Terry.
The officer had grounds to think that petitioner and Chilton’s behavior was suspicious. The officer considered that they might be armed. The officer had right to conduct a search of two men in order to discover any weapons. His actions were recognized as reasonable as the suspects might attack him or other nearby.
Decision. The Court stated that the searches carried out by the officer were carefully limited. They were aimed to defend his life. Petitioner and Chilton were called guilty. The State Supreme Court discharged the petition, as there was “no substantial constitutional question”.
Interpretation. When “a reasonably prudent officer” believes that his safety or that of others is in danger, he may make a sensible search for weapons of the person who he considered to be armed. Besides any weapons that were seized may be introduced as confirmation. (The Fourth Amendment, pp. 20-27).
Bibliography.
1. David B. Kopel, Stephen P. Halbrook,.Alan Korwin. SUPREME COURT GUN CASES. 2003
2. Wayne R. Lafave. Search & Seizure, a Treatise on the Fourth Amendment. 1995
Custom essay writing services ESSAY-911.com. Buy essays online!
Tags: custom essay, writing service
