Constitutionality of Police Stops and Searches: Terry v. Ohio

In this video, we discuss the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, which addresses whether the police can stop an individual and search them if they do not yet have probable cause to arrest him or her. This case has been a landmark case in 4th Amendment caselaw for decades and has been cited thousands of times in courtrooms all over the the Country. A must-watch for all prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, police officers, law enforcement agents, civilians, family of accused, civil libertarians, constitutional scholars, and all who enjoy learning about real criminal cases.

Case Name: Terry v. Ohio
Citation: 392 U.S. 1 (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...)
Publication Date: 06/10/68
Oral Argument: https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/warren...
Issue: Can the police stop a person and search them without probable cause?

Key Parts of the Decision:

Overall Issue: “This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances.”

“The question is whether, in all the circumstances of this on-the-street encounter, his right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure.”

“whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest.”

Overall Holding: “The Fourth Amendment provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ." This inestimable right of personal security belongs as much to the citizen on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs.“

“We have recently held that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places," Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351 (1967), and wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable "expectation of privacy," id. at 361 (MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, concurring), he is entitled to be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion. Of course, the specific content and incidents of this right must be shaped by the context in which it is asserted. For "what the Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures." Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 222 (1960). Unquestionably petitioner was entitled to the protection of the Fourth Amendment as he walked down the street in Cleveland.”

“When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take necessary measures to determine whether the person is, in fact, carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.

We must still consider, however, the nature and quality of the intrusion on individual rights which must be accepted if police officers are to be conceded the right to search for weapons in situations where probable cause to arrest for crime is lacking. Even a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons constitutes a severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security, and it must surely be an annoying, frightening, and perhaps humiliating experience.”

#lawtalk
#scotus #landmarkcases #searchandseizure #police #stopandsearch #seizures