The case of Terry v. Ohio was one of the most discussed and frequently analyzed cases in the history of criminology. On the one hand, it shows that human rights could be interpreted in different ways. On the other hand, it demonstrates police’s possible to identify and predict crimes in case they have enough skills and reasons for searches. In brief, Terry v. Ohio case tells the story of when Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden observed two people (Terry was one of them) walking around the shop and discussing something with a third person and decided to check them by introducing them as a police representative and patting down Terry’s back (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). As a result, the gun was discovered, and three people were arrested and convinced in the attempt to rob the store. The court during which Terry and Chilton (another potential robber) was charged with carrying concealed weapons began in 1968 (Terry v. Ohio, 1968).
Impact of the Case on Criminal Justice and US Citizens
The impact of the case remains to be crucial because from that period police officers were allowed to stop and seize ordinary people without special permission or in case people demonstrate suspicious behavior. With the help of this case, the court proved that all elements of non-verbal behavior that cause some doubts could be used as evidence of possible criminal intentions in case they are properly interpreted by a police representative. From the criminal point of view, the case helped police workers develop their skills and intuition and observe the events around them precisely. From a social point of view, the case created boundaries that ordinary people could not break.
Rules of the Case
The main rule that comes from the case is the possibility to stop and seize people without any reason just to check and get the possibility to prevent a crime. The presence of a weapon could or could not be explained. Therefore, the rule to stop and frisk differs from a full search considerably and has its own goals and outcomes. The situation when the Officer asks Ray, a known drug dealer, to stop and show what is in his pockets, could be identified as a request under the terms of the “stop and frisk” policy. The initial stop is valid. However, the search of the home could not be defined as valid in case there is no special permission and order.
Similar Case
Terry v. Ohio is not the only case in its nature. For example, in 1983, the case Michigan v. Long occurred. It was a kind of extension of the Terry v. Ohio case that helped to clarify and create the boundaries of adequate grounds for police stops and seizures. The procedure was called a protective search to find out the weapons or some substances that could influence human behavior.
Importance of “Reasonable Scope of Search”
According to the fourth amendment, the scope of a search has to be reasonable. It could be with or without a warrant. Still, it should have a reason. Therefore, the investigations show that a police officer could develop an ordinary check in a variety of ways because of the possibility to search anywhere where the suspected item could be hidden. In general, a protective search has enough grounds and reasons to be supported because if a person has nothing to hide, it should not be a challenge to pass a test. If a person has something to hide, such a check is an opportunity to avoid crime.
Reference
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).