Case Brief of Terry v
Running head: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1
October 4, 2014
Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes, Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times, pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route, the two men would meet on the corner; on several occasions the two men were joined by a third man (Katz), who left very quickly. Detective McFadden had specifically worked this downtown beat for 30 years concentrating on shoplifters, pickpocketers and suspected the men were going to hold up the store. Detective McFadden approached the three men and asked them for their names. The men mumbled something and Detective McFadden spun Terry around, patted down the outside of his clothing and found a pistol. Detective McFadden was unable to remove the pistol and ordered all three men in the store, to stand against a wall with their hands up. Once in the store the Detective removed Terry’s overcoat and secured the firearm. The Detective performed the same pat down on Chilton and Katz, neither time putting his hands under the outer garments of the suspects, until he felt a gun and at which time he was removing the gun for his and others safety. Detective McFadden seized and removed a revolver from the outer garment of Chilton.
Katz was not carrying a weapon. Terry’s attorney filed a motion to suppress the guns. The State took the position that the guns were seized following a search incident to a lawful arrest. However the trial court rejected that States theory stating it was a far stretch that Detective McFadden had probable cause to arrest the men prior to the pat down. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion as well, basing their decision on Detective McFadden’s, “experience
Case Brief of Terry v. Ohio
392 U.S. 1
October 4, 2014
Facts At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, while patrolling a downtown beat in plain clothes, Detective McFadden observed two men (later identified as Terry and Chilton) standing on a street corner. The two men walked back and forth an identical route a total of 24 times, pausing to stare inside a store window. After the completion of walking the route, the two men would meet on the corner; on several occasions the two men were joined by a third man (Katz), who left very quickly. Detective McFadden had specifically worked this downtown beat for 30 years concentrating on shoplifters, pickpocketers and suspected the men were going to hold up the store. Detective McFadden approached the three men and asked them for their names. The men mumbled something and Detective McFadden spun Terry around, patted down the outside of his clothing and found a pistol. Detective McFadden was unable to remove the pistol and ordered all three men in the store, to stand against a wall with their hands up. Once in the store the Detective removed Terry’s overcoat and secured the firearm. The Detective performed the same pat down on Chilton and Katz, neither time putting his hands under the outer garments of the suspects, until he felt a gun and at which time he was removing the gun for his and others safety. Detective McFadden seized and removed a revolver from the outer garment of Chilton.
Katz was not carrying a weapon. Terry’s attorney filed a motion to suppress the guns. The State took the position that the guns were seized following a search incident to a lawful arrest. However the trial court rejected that States theory stating it was a far stretch that Detective McFadden had probable cause to arrest the men prior to the pat down. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion as well, basing their decision on Detective McFadden’s, “experience