0
What does the ruling in the US Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio allow police to do?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Briefly - it allows police to stop people on the street and search them based on the articulable reasonable suspicion of the officer which may not rise to probable cause.
Explanation
It allows police to perform what is called a "Terry" pat or frisk (commonly and incorrectly called a pat search). A Terry pat is distinguished from a search in that the officer needs only a reasonable suspicion that you are perpetrating a crime (they don't have a particular crime in mind), they can direct you to assume a position that provides for their safety (feet spread, lean forward at the waist, hands on your head) and they must use their open palm laid flat against your clothing to distinguish contraband.
They may not close their hand (pinch or squeeze), manipulate the clothing or place their hand inside or underneath the clothing (they can instruct you to remove your jacket but may only use the techniques already described to search it).
If during the Terry pat they are able to identify probable cause they can proceed to a more intrusive search for weapons or contraband. Usually that means that they find something that they can undoubtedly say is a weapon or drug paraphernalia simply by the feel of their open hand. A gun in your pocket is pretty obvious and would qualify, but a cough drop couldn't be reasonably construed a crack cocaine.
Case Citation:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What was the supreme court of ruling in the Terry Shiavo Case?
The Supreme Court of the United States refused to review four appeals.
What can police do during a Terry stop?
The Supreme Court held in Terry v. Ohio (1968) that police officers, based on their street experience but not necessarily probable cause, may stop suspects and pat them down to look for weapons. The Court expanded this category of warrantless searches and seizures in Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), ruling that a police officer may seize contraband, not just weapons, during a "pat down." However, such contraband must be obvious through the defendant's clothing. Source: The Words We Live By...Linda Monk...2003
Is Terry v. Ohio a criminal case?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)John Terry's trial (State of Ohio v. John W. Terry) was a criminal case, but the US Supreme Court case (Terry v. Ohio) involved police procedure as applied under constitutional law. Terry wasn't on trial before the Supreme Court; the Court reviewed whether Terry's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure had been violated and, if so, whether the evidence in his criminal case should have been suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule.If the the Supreme Court had held in Terry's favor, instead of Ohio's, the conviction would have been vacated and the case remanded to the trial court for a new trial, at which time it would have become a criminal case again.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Did Terry v. Ohio go to the US Supreme Court?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)Yes. John W. Terry, the defendant in State of Ohio v. Terry, appealed constitutional issues involved in his criminal conviction n the case Terry v. Ohio to the US Supreme Court. His appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio was dismissed for lack of a substantial constitutional question. Terry v. Ohio was argued on December 12, 1967 and the decision was issued on June 10, 1968.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How did the Terry v. Ohio case change the Fourth Amendment?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)It didn't change the Fourth Amendment at all. The US Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment as allowing the "stop and frisk" procedure to which Terry objected. The Court held the circumstances in the case did not fall under the definition of "unreasonable search and seizure."For more information, see Related Questions, below.
In what courts was the Terry v Ohio case argued?
Bench TrialState of Ohio v. John W. Terry, 95 Ohio L.Abs. 321 (1964)The defendants waived a jury trial, and entered a plea of not guilty. Terry appeared before Judge Bernard Friedman at a bench trial in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County on October 2, 1964.He was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in prison.Ohio Court of AppealsState of Ohio v. John W. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122 - Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga Co. (1966)On December 10, 1966, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Terry's conviction.Ohio Supreme CourtDenied appeal.US Supreme CourtTerry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)The US Supreme Court heard the case under appellate jurisdiction, so there was no trial. Oral arguments were delivered on December 12, 1967 and the Court released it's decision on June 10, 1968. The US Supreme Court affirmed the Ohio courts' decisions.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who was the defendant in Terry v Ohio?
In the US Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the respondent (like a defendant) in the case was the State of Ohio. John W. Terry was the petitioner or appellant (like a plaintiff).Terry was appealing his criminal conviction in People v. John W. Terry, 95 Ohio L. Abs. 321 (Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County 1964), in which Terry had been the defendant and the State of Ohio had been the plaintiff.
Car the police search your car without your permission or a warrant?
Yes, the police may search your car without a warrant or your permission if s/he has "reasonable suspicion." This means that an experienced police officer had reasonable suspicions to search you or your car, he may and any evidence found in the search may be used in court. This is a much more lenient standard than "probable cause," needed for a warrant, because policemen are in great danger whenever they pull someone over. This more lenient guideline was established by the Supreme Court Case of Terry v.Ohio.
What was the date of the court case of the trial of Terry v. Ohio?
AnswerIf you're asking about Terry's criminal trial (State of Ohio v. John W. Terry), it took place on October 2, 1964; if you're asking about his US Supreme Court appeal(Terry v. Ohio), which was not a trial, oral arguments were held on December 12, 1967, and the decision released on June 10, 1968.DetailsTerry and Chilton were arrested on October 31, 1963, and initially indicted by the State of Ohio on charges of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Section 2923.01, Ohio Revised Code.Louis Stokes, Terry's attorney, filed a motion to suppress the weapon as evidence on the theory that the "stop and frisk" violated Terry's rights under the Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Clause. The motion was denied.Bench TrialState of Ohio v. John W. Terry, 95 Ohio L.Abs. 321 (1964)The defendants waived a jury trial, and entered a plea of not guilty. Terry appeared before Judge Bernard Friedman at a bench trial in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County on October 2, 1964.He was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in prison.Court of AppealsState of Ohio v. John W. Terry, 5 Ohio App.2d 122 - Court of Appeals of Ohio, Cuyahoga Co. (1966)On December 10, 1966, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed Terry's conviction.Ohio Supreme CourtDenied appeal.US Supreme CourtTerry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)The US Supreme Court heard the case under appellate jurisdiction, so there was no trial. Oral arguments were delivered on December 12, 1967 and the Court released it's decision on June 10, 1968. The US Supreme Court affirmed the Ohio courts' decisions.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Who is the Chief of Police in Tucson Arizona as of January 2011?
Terry Rozema, a Tucson Police Department veteran of 23 years, will be replacing Terry Tometich, Marana Chief of Police since 2008.
Were there any pictures from Terry v Ohio?
If you mean pictures from the US Supreme Court oral arguments, no. Cameras and video devices aren't allowed in the courtroom. Either party may commission a court artist to draw pictures while the case is being heard, but that doesn't appear to have happened in Terry v. Ohio.There are a number of representative pictures demonstrating suspects being frisked, and also a photo of Louis Stokes, the attorney who argued on Terry's behalf before the Supreme Court, available (see Related Links), but nothing more specific than that.For more information, see Related Links and Related Questions, below.
What U.S. Supreme Court Reporter and Lawyers Edition Reporter published Terry v. Ohio?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)For more information, see Related Questions, below.
