issue‚ but upon probable cause‚ supported by Oath or affirmation‚ and particularly describing the place to be searched ‚ and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution). This amendment was first used in the court system in the case of Terry vs. Ohio (1968). This case was the case that shaped the stop-and-frisk laws that are found in our country today. In 1942 legislators started to authorize stops-and-frisks on less than probable cause under the Uniform Arrest Act. This act gave an officer
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio was a court decision made in 1968 that still affects how police conduct their operations to this day. This case gave special liberties to police officers which would otherwise be in conflict with the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states " the right of the people to be secure in their persons‚ house‚ papers‚ and effects‚ against unreasonable searches and seizure‚ shall not be violated‚ and no Warrants shall issue‚ but upon probable cause‚ supported by Oath or affirmation‚ and
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution
illustrated when comparing population growth numbers by the increase in people actually stopped and those arrested. Current law allows police officers to conduct stop and frisk searches of persons based on reasonable suspicion‚ as determined by Terry v. Ohio where supreme court decisions determined that individuals can be searched not only for probable cause (where an individual is under suspicion of committing a specific crime) but also for reasonable suspicion (where an individual is thought to be
Premium Terry v. Ohio Crime Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
http://law.jrank.org/pages/5874/Criminal- Procedure-Automobile-Exception-Warrant- Requirement.html Stuckey‚ G.‚ Roberson‚ C.‚ & Wallace‚ H. (2006). Procedures in the justice system (8th Ed.). Upper Saddle River‚ NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Terry v. Ohio (1968.). Retrieved 06 17 2011 from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi- bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=392&invol=1 Search and Seizure (n.d.). Retrieved 06 17 2011 from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_rights/your-rights-search-and-seizure/fourth-
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
We live in world where police officers are suppose to be protected and help us out when needed. The reality of it is police officers are out here on the beat violating are constitutional rights. Stop and frisk was to help fight crime on the streets but all it caused was racial profiling by officers everyday for the last twelve years. Stop and frisk has been used and abused and young adults are afraid to leave their house because they know they will be harassed for no good reason. Stop and frisk has
Premium Police Terry v. Ohio Civil liberties
“Stop and Frisk” “Stop and Frisk” has been a very controversial method of policing over the last few years in New York city because of its associations with racial profiling. It has been used as a tool for the government to attempt to reduce crime in a preemptive way by using reasonable suspicion to stop‚ question‚ search‚ and if necessary‚ detain any citizen the officer chooses. Statistically‚ almost 90% of stop and frisk suspects in New York city were found to have nothing incriminating and were
Premium Police Crime Terry v. Ohio
illustrated when comparing population growth numbers by the increase in people actually stopped and those arrested. Current law allows police officers to conduct stop and frisk searches of persons based on reasonable suspicion‚ as determined by Terry v. Ohio where supreme court decisions determined that individuals can be searched not only for probable cause (where an individual is under suspicion of committing a specific crime) but also for reasonable suspicion (where an individual is thought to be
Premium Terry v. Ohio Crime Criminal law
Stop and Frisk page2 Abstract This paper was written to take a look at both sides of the stop and frisk program. By examining both sides I hope to show the effectiveness of the program‚ but not to leave out the possible negative effects also. There is no doubt that this program has gain a lot of negative attention‚ the main controversial issue at hand is that the people feel that it gives the cops to much authority to stop anyone they can. This program is to believe that it is a way to
Premium Crime Police Terry v. Ohio
seizure. The way law enforcement can obtain a warrant is if they have probable cause. Terry stops are excluded. Terry stops usually are allowed by the suspect to search. Once a stop has been made on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity‚ if law enforcement feels that their life is in danger a frisk may be made on reasonable suspicion that the suspect could possibly be armed and dangerous. In Terry v. Ohio the Supreme Court evened the government note in crime prevention and concentrated on the
Premium Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution United States Constitution Terry v. Ohio
based on careless movements and the lack of proper self composure‚ seems to be justice to me. . (Gaines‚ 2012)"The precedent for the ever-elusive definition of a "reasonable" suspicion in stop-and-frisk situations was established in Terry v. Ohio (1968)" An Ohio detective by the name of McFadden‚ an older detective which held experience in the area‚ noticed two certain individuals acting peculiarly in the downtown beat. Actions such as passing by a store‚ peering into windows‚ and then repositioning
Premium Police Terry v. Ohio Crime