Terry v. Ohio was a decision made by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him with or without probable cause to arrest. If the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that he has committed, is committing or is about committing a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous. When a person has been stopped the police may perform a quick search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if only they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence but allow reasonable searches and seizures.
In the case of Terry and officer observed three men including Terry and their behavior was suspicious; the officer suspected that the men were planning to rob a store, when the officer inquired them what they were doing they mumbled. The officer searched each of them and uncovered two guns from them; Terry who was one of the men in possession of a gun was convicted of possessing a weapon. Terry filed a case claiming that the search violated the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The United States Supreme Court held that the search was reasonable so long as the officer has a reasonable suspicion a crime was about to take place. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer and termed the search as reasonable.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The search was reasonable as officers may conduct a search limited to weapons when they observe an unusual conduct or behavior leading them to reasonably suspect criminal activity is afoot and the people or the person involved is or are armed. The court held that an officers interest in the safety of himself and others outweighs an individual’s Fourth Amendment right. Additionally, when an individual is stopped in the street the police can conduct a search for weapons if based on the facts and circumstances, the officer reasonably believes the person is armed.
In Terry’s case considering the circumstances, it was reasonable for the officer to suspect the two men were planning a robbery and the search was legal. The officer did not have a probable cause at that time to conduct a search and seize the weapons; this is because the officer was not on duty and was in plain clothes. Secondly, the officer was not sent to arrest or investigate the three men; according to officers reasoning, the men acted suspiciously as they kept on moving around the store in a manner that suggested that they wanted to rob the store. Therefore the stop and frisk, arrest and seizure was legal as there was a reasonable suspicion and even after the search weapons were discovered and the suspects were in possession of guns illegally.
The Courts ruling was genuine; this is because many people today own weapons illegally and uses the weapons to rob others. Police should be allowed to conduct a search on any person who acts suspiciously as this will help in reducing criminal acts. The safety of the public and that of the officer is greater than that of a single individual or a group that acts suspiciously; therefore a stop and frisk on search individuals is legal. The police should not take advantage of their position and conduct a stop and frisk action due to their personal issues as this is illegal and actions should be taken on search officers to avoid unreasonable search, seizure or arrest.
