Terry versus Ohio Impact on The 4TH Amendment

Terryversus Ohio Impact on The 4THAmendment

Terryversus Ohio was a judgment by the Supreme Court in the US whichdecided that the 4thAmendment provision concerning personnel being seized and friskswasn’t a violation. If the law enforcer suspected beyond reasonabledoubt whether the person performed, was doing and maybe had theintention of doing something wrong, and there is doubt that theperson may be carrying a weapon and or is putting lives in danger, apolice officer would choose to halt suspectedperson in the city and searche them without reasonable justification(Peak2012). The Court was faced, at the time with a decision onwhether to make a minor exception within the Fourth Amendment’sprobability cause and requirements. It also had to decide on warrantsthat allow law enforcement officers in a short span to stop acitizen, ask questions and frisk them to determine if he or she hasan arm that could put the office in danger. In maintaining the stopand frisk method employed by an Ohio police officer, the Courtdecided that the accurate constitutional measure would be reasonablesuspicion rather than the probable cause(Peak, 2012).

Becauseof their concerns with regards to security, when a person has beenstopped, police may perform a fast search of the individual’sclothing on the outer surface if they have real doubted the personstopped may have a weapon. The suspicion must be founded on or havearticulable and specific facts and not just a hunch or feeling. Thisallowed the police action which would be termed as “stop andfrisk”. The Supreme Court depended on officers’ judgmentregarding the potential of a criminal action. The Criminal ProcedureLaw in New York systematizes the Court’s holding in Terry, givingcops the consent to make constrained interruptions on the privilegesof freedom of people out in the open spots, when the conditions givea reasonable basis to speculate contribution in criminal action. Whena law enforcement officer approaches an individual or curtails theirfreedom of movement, he will have held that person within theprovisions found in the fourth amendment.


Topof FormPeak,K. J. (2012). Justiceadministration: Police, courts, and corrections management.Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education.

Bottom of Form