Nick DeAngelis

Business Law
Prof. Barnes
2/26/16
Terry v. Ohio
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Facts:
Officer McFadden saw terry and his friend on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid
Avenue. He could not say specifically why he was drawn to Terry and his friend, but that they
simply did not look right to [him] at the time. He saw them repeatedly walking by a certain
store, peering into the window each time, and took it to be them casing a job, a stick up. He
also feared that they may have a gun, although there were no visible signs of weapons. When he
approached them and identified himself as a police officer, the men mumbled something. Not
content with this level of compliance, he proceeded to detained Terry and searched him by
patting down his outer garments. Feeling a pistol in Terrys jacket pocket, the officer seized the
weapon and proceeded to arrest the men, finding another weapon on Terrys friends person as
well. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and received a 1-3 year sentence.
Terry pled not guilty and went to trial court on the grounds that the search was unlawful.
Trial court ruled in favor of the prosecution, the court of appeals agreed with trial court, and the
Supreme Court dismissed appeal on the ground that there was no substantial constitutional
question involved.
Prosecution:
The prosecution claims that the officers actions were admissible because the weapons
had been seized following a search incident to a lawful arrest. The officer also claims that
because of his experience, he is able to detect suspicious activity simply from observing. He
felt that the men were acting very suspiciously, akin to someone who was casing the joint, and
took it as his duty to approach them on those grounds.
Because they did not comply in a satisfactory way when he identified himself as an
officer (claiming they responded by mumbling something) he felt it necessary to search them to
protect himself as he feared that they may have been carrying a weapon, which they were.
Because it was cursory, simply patting down Terrys outer garments and not putting his hands
beneath the outer garments, it was not a complete search and was there for lawful and justified in
the situation for the safety of the officer.
Defendant:

The claim that the seizure was admissible because the weapon was seized following a
search incident to a lawful arrest is cyclical and illogical, as a lawful arrest occurred after the
search and seizure of the weapon.
The lawfulness of the initial search was contingent on a legitimate grounds for suspicion
of criminal behavior (probable cause), of which the defendant claims there was none. The
officers search was unlawful due to a lack of tangible or objective reason(s) to believe that the
defendant was committing a crime or acting in a criminal manner. The defendant did not have a
weapon in plain sight nor was he committing crime or acting criminally. The officers intuition in
simply thinking that the defendant did not look right is not a reasonable, probable cause for
suspicion.
Majority:
The trial court rejected the prosecutions position that the seizure was admissible on the
grounds that it was following a lawful arrest as they felt it would be stretching the facts beyond
a reasonable comprehension, or essentially that it was an unreasonable and illogical claim, since
the arrest came after the search.
However, they affirmed that the officer had reasonable cause to believe that the
defendants were acting suspiciously based on his experience. Because the officer, while
performing a lawful investigatory stop due to reasonable suspicion, performed a cursory frisk,
rather than a full blown search, his actions were justified and not unlawful. The frisk was
necessary for the officer to properly and safely perform his duties and without it, the answer to
the police officer may be a bullet.
The court ruled in favor of the prosecution.
Dissenting:
When an officer is justified in believing an individual is committing a crime or acting
criminally, it is reasonable to grant the officer power to take the necessary measures to protect
himself, including detaining and searching the individual for weapons. This justification,
however, must come from tangible and objective facts, otherwise we blur the line that separates
an officers whim and the presence of legitimate reasons to be suspicious.
A persons property is, and should remain beyond the reach of the government unless
there is probable cause to believe that they have, are, or will be acting criminally. Such probable
cause, however, should never stem from the subjectivity of an arresting officer, or else we will be
giving the police power in a manner that can easily lead towards totalitarianism.