The Terry v. Ohio case was the first case that questioned the stop and frisk. Police officers were allowed to walk up to anyone and search them if they allowed. In 1968, John Terry and two other guys were getting ready to rob a store. They fit the description so an officer stopped them. But the way the officer approached them and handled the situation was unethical. Terry was then able to fight for himself and say that the officer did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion in order to search them. This was then a reason for a new law to be made. #notaplumber003
Terry v Ohio was quite a significant case throughout the history of the American courts- it set forth an unprecedented set of laws that should’ve been implemented long before this case. Essentially what happened in this case was that an officer surveyed three individuals “casing a joint,” and approached them to ask for their names and to announce he was a police officer. The three men had already displayed pretty suspicious behavior, then proceeded to mumble some incoherent names, so when the officer frisked them he found two loaded handguns. When it was taken to court, the initial judge admitted the guns as evidence and ignored the defendants’ pleas to dismiss them, which ended up leading to the men being convicted. Once at the supreme court after Terry appealed the case, the chief justice at the time said there needed to be a finer line between probable cause (needed to do a full search), and stopping and frisking (which now only requires reasonable suspicion). In layman's terms, this case set forth the laws we still have in place today that require law enforcement to meet two requirements in order to complete a stop and frisk (legally); they are that one, you have a reasonable suspicion that there is criminal activity about to happen, or happening, and two, that you have reason to believe the suspect being surveyed may be armed. GMan003
I thought this video was helpful as it explained the facts of how and why stop and frisk came to be a procedure officers use today. The gentleman in the video told the story how Terry vs Ohio all began. A group of men were congregating in front of a clothing store. An officer noticed the behavior and proceeded to stop and frisk the group of men. The officer found two loaded guns in the coats of two members of the group, at the time of the event Ohio had laws that prohibited concealment of carry guns. The question is then, did the officer have legal conduct? Did the officer have a legal right to stop and frisk the individuals? Through this case Terry Vs Ohio, the courts reviewed their policies. Hence, they came up with reasonable suspicion clause. For reasonable suspicion clause to be applied correctly it must have suspicion of criminal action and/or armed and dangerous individuals. This clause gives helpful framework for stop and frisk procedures to be lawfully executed. -CoalRoller003
Terry stops Terry stops were part of a law suit in 1968 in Ohio. The guy, last name, terry felt like he was legally stoped as officers found guns on him. This talk was done at Wake Forrest University. The stop took place in the middle of the city. The officer was Martin McFadden as he was with multiply other officers. Both of the 2 men were convicted of carry guns. The two that were arrested cause that the officers got the guns on an illegal search. At the court hearing, the 2 were charged with the gun charges. This stop was latter ruled to be unconstitutional by the courts. At the time, the officer has reasonable suspicion because the guys were acting like they casing the store. They thought there was a crime committed or there could be one. They used the phrase armed and dangerous. -chicubs003
The video we watched in class was about Terry v. Ohio. The case was monumental in the procedure of stop and frisk. Officer Mcfadden was looking for pickpockets on the streets when he noticed two individuals staking out a store front. They would pace back and forth and then meet back up with one another. They ended up walking around the corner and meet another individual. Officer Mcfadden stopped them and proceeded to frisk the individuals. He found two handguns and they ended up getting charged with them. This case was argued on whether or not the officer had the right to go inside Terry’s coat pocket to find the gun. This case is still a hot topic of discussion even today. -AS003
Terry v. Ohio is a case that has been discussed and reviewed at length many times. It will always be a hot topic for many people. This set the standard for what a police officer can do with stop and frisk. A officer in Cleveland in 1963 saw a group of people who looked like they were casing a place. When he stop the individuals and frisked them, he found that two of them had guns. Terry, one of the individuals who had a gun, argued that the officer did not have probable cause to frisk them. This case created a new category reasonable suspicion, which the officer had reasonable suspicion that they were going to rob the place. -ClarkKent003
This video explained the legal framework to stop and frisk very well. There's a case called Terry v. Ohio of 1968 that's been discussed multiple times with different people. This happened in Cleveland during 1963. Officer McFadden sees three guys talking together. Then all of a sudden one guy goes and looks inside a store window, then the next one goes and so on. They each do it about 4 times which becomes sketchy to officer McFadden. The 3 guys were named Terry, Chilton and Cats, when he stopped them he found a gun on Terry and Chilton but nothing on Cats. The guns were both loaded so he made an arrest and were both charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Terrys argument was that McFadden did not have probable cause to frisk them. Officer McFadden clearly didn't have probable cause and it was just a search. This then created reasonable suspicion and McFadden had reasonable suspicion that they were gonna rob the store. -brooklyn003
From this case terry vs Ohio case it created awareness to police officers when comes to stop and frisk situation. in 1968 the decision was made by united supreme court which held that the Fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. stop and frisk can only be done when police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged or about to be engaged in committing criminal conduct. GUSII 003
Stop and frisk is a law that started in 1968. It is only allowed when an officer has reasonable suspicion on a citizen. In 1968, the Terry v. Ohio case took place. An officer had a suspicion that a robbery was about to occur, involving Terry and two other males. The argument was if the stop was legal. The officer saw the three men walking back and forth past a store, as if they were casing it. This gave him suspicion of criminal action. The officer had reasonable suspicion that they were planning to rob the store, which gave him the idea to stop and frisk. –pieface003
In getting a clearer understanding of the Terry V. Ohio case of 1968 that brought about the challenges of “Stop and Frisk”, I am not sure why there was ever an issue. The officer involved clearly had probable cause to not only stop the individuals involved but also after the fact detain them. There was suspicion and probable cause. Not saying that in some case this “Stop and Frisk” procedure hasn’t been taken out of context and used as a form of harassment, prime example as Mr. McFadden explained “Latinos and Blacks being stopped more frequent then Whites” but again, in this case I feel the officer was justified in his actions. I also feel none of the 4th Amendment rights were violated in this case. Jadist003
I have always been kinda confused with this case. I think Terry v. Ohio is a touchy subject in general, and there is a lot of what ifs in this case. But this video lectured clarified a lot of the confusion for me. An officer thought that three subjects were casing a store to rob it. The officer thought that he had enough reasonable suspicion to search the three subjects, and while doing that he found guns on 2 out of the three subjects. But one subject whose name was terry believed that the officer unlawfully searched them. So then the man took this case to court to fight it, thus resulting in stop and frisk laws that we have today. I-Like-Cereal003
The video was about Terry v. Ohio. The case was big when it comes to the procedure of stop and frisk. Officer McFadden was looking for pickpockets on the streets when he came across two individuals staking out a store front. They paced back and forth and then met back up with each other. The individuals walked around the corner and met another individual. Officer McFadden stopped them and proceeded to frisk the individuals. He found two handguns and they ended up getting charged with them. This case was argued on whether or not the officer had the right to go inside Terry’s coat pocket to find the gun. -CUBSFAN003
This video gives a good explanation on what is stop and frisk and relates it back to the Terry v. Ohio case. How he explained the stop part of stop and frisk is stop your not going anywhere and the frisk which means I’m going to check you for weapons. But there are rules that go into play on how a officer is supposed to do a stop and frisk. Which comes from the case Terry v. Ohio from 1968. This case really shaped how America does part of its policing. A police officer can only stop and frisk you if the officer has reasonable suspicion. Batman003
In this video the lecturer did very well in clearly explaining stop and frisk and telling us all of the important details of Terry v. Ohio. Before watching the video I was slightly confused on how officers made legal stops and frisked people, but after watching, I learned that an officer must have reasonable suspicion before frisking anyone. I also learned that stop and frisk are two separate actions. In the case of Terry v. Ohio the people who were frisked had believed they were illegally searched, so they took it to court and it was eventually ruled that the officer was in the right and it turned out to be a huge case that set the precedent for stop and frisk in our country. -Smokeybear003
I wasn't completely aware of how stop and frisks worked and what all of the rules are but now I know that in order to make a legal stop and frisk an officer has to have reasonable suspicion and they have to believe the person is carrying a weapon. Terry v. Ohio is what made stop and frisk. It set the ground rules and said that if there is reasonable suspicion in believing the officer or others are in danger they are allowed to stop someone and ask questions and also frisk them if they think it is necessary. Ark003
During this video lecture the instructor did a very good job clearly explain stop and frisk. He explained in detail Terry versus Ohio in a way that I thought made it very easy to understand. He explained how the stop part of stopping for stop and frisks means that the suspect is not able to go anywhere before they pat him or her down. The biggest thing in officer needs to stop someone is a legitimate reason for the stop such as reasonable suspicion. -RHB003
Terry v Ohio is a landmark case in which the supreme court ruled that as long as you have a reasonable suspicion you can stop someone on the street and frisk them. This is a big deal because it has informed how police operate in the United States and has stirred up quite a bit of controversy. I thought the professor did a great job explaining the case and it was good to get more information about what happened exactly. I had know in essence what Terry v Ohio was about but learning about the details was cool. Avatar003
I believe the video did educate us more about the “Stop and Frisk”. However I do not agree with the force behind the Stop and frisk. The professor stated that officer Fabian had to basically fight a jacket off of the suspect. (Terry) I’m willing to consider the drastic change of sources of what happened that night. I also don’t believe in throwing a suspect up against a window and forcefully making the individuals turn around. But like I said I don’t truly know what exactly happened. The officer did have a reason beyond suspicion to stop them and ask them what they are doing. I think the officer should have radioed for back up to search the individuals. I think that would help prevent any line crossing. But to my understanding the officer was patrolling alone. Two suspects had a weapon on them which he was right to frisk them. However officers need to make sure they are following protocol. Casket003
So this video was very informative on stop and frisk and how it can be taking and split into different sections. There has to be a suspicion criminal activity and to be armed and dangerous. Then they made it that they need just reasonable suspicion to frisk not search, this all changed because of the terry vs ohio case when a cop saw a group of guys acting suspicions stopped and frisked and found guns. They tried saying that it was found illegal therefore couldn't be used in trial supreme court did not go for it because of the reasonable suspicion -pizza003
So what I obtained from this video is that the explanation of stop and frisk from this video is different from what we saw in the second video. The Instructor was clear covering Terry V. Ohio discussing the overall view of the case. Terry V. Ohio is definitely a hot topic to cover for the time being especially with today’s advancement of social media and cameras. With Terry V. Ohio being the right that it is L.E.O’s should make sure to do the right thing and make sure that actually have reasonable suspicion and reason without doubt for stopping somebody. So with that being said how to we come to terms and doubts with proving that reasonable suspicion to start off the stop and frisk. Terry V. Ohio is something to make sure to stay on your toes when it comes to being an officer. -MrWadewilson003
The Terry v. Ohio case was the first case that questioned the stop and frisk. Police officers were allowed to walk up to anyone and search them if they allowed. In 1968, John Terry and two other guys were getting ready to rob a store. They fit the description so an officer stopped them. But the way the officer approached them and handled the situation was unethical. Terry was then able to fight for himself and say that the officer did not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion in order to search them. This was then a reason for a new law to be made. #notaplumber003
ReplyDeleteTerry v Ohio was quite a significant case throughout the history of the American courts- it set forth an unprecedented set of laws that should’ve been implemented long before this case. Essentially what happened in this case was that an officer surveyed three individuals “casing a joint,” and approached them to ask for their names and to announce he was a police officer. The three men had already displayed pretty suspicious behavior, then proceeded to mumble some incoherent names, so when the officer frisked them he found two loaded handguns. When it was taken to court, the initial judge admitted the guns as evidence and ignored the defendants’ pleas to dismiss them, which ended up leading to the men being convicted. Once at the supreme court after Terry appealed the case, the chief justice at the time said there needed to be a finer line between probable cause (needed to do a full search), and stopping and frisking (which now only requires reasonable suspicion). In layman's terms, this case set forth the laws we still have in place today that require law enforcement to meet two requirements in order to complete a stop and frisk (legally); they are that one, you have a reasonable suspicion that there is criminal activity about to happen, or happening, and two, that you have reason to believe the suspect being surveyed may be armed. GMan003
ReplyDeleteI thought this video was helpful as it explained the facts of how and why stop and frisk came to be a procedure officers use today. The gentleman in the video told the story how Terry vs Ohio all began. A group of men were congregating in front of a clothing store. An officer noticed the behavior and proceeded to stop and frisk the group of men. The officer found two loaded guns in the coats of two members of the group, at the time of the event Ohio had laws that prohibited concealment of carry guns. The question is then, did the officer have legal conduct? Did the officer have a legal right to stop and frisk the individuals? Through this case Terry Vs Ohio, the courts reviewed their policies. Hence, they came up with reasonable suspicion clause. For reasonable suspicion clause to be applied correctly it must have suspicion of criminal action and/or armed and dangerous individuals. This clause gives helpful framework for stop and frisk procedures to be lawfully executed. -CoalRoller003
ReplyDeleteTerry stops
ReplyDeleteTerry stops were part of a law suit in 1968 in Ohio. The guy, last name, terry felt like he was legally stoped as officers found guns on him. This talk was done at Wake Forrest University. The stop took place in the middle of the city. The officer was Martin McFadden as he was with multiply other officers. Both of the 2 men were convicted of carry guns. The two that were arrested cause that the officers got the guns on an illegal search. At the court hearing, the 2 were charged with the gun charges. This stop was latter ruled to be unconstitutional by the courts. At the time, the officer has reasonable suspicion because the guys were acting like they casing the store. They thought there was a crime committed or there could be one. They used the phrase armed and dangerous. -chicubs003
The video we watched in class was about Terry v. Ohio. The case was monumental in the procedure of stop and frisk. Officer Mcfadden was looking for pickpockets on the streets when he noticed two individuals staking out a store front. They would pace back and forth and then meet back up with one another. They ended up walking around the corner and meet another individual. Officer Mcfadden stopped them and proceeded to frisk the individuals. He found two handguns and they ended up getting charged with them. This case was argued on whether or not the officer had the right to go inside Terry’s coat pocket to find the gun. This case is still a hot topic of discussion even today. -AS003
ReplyDeleteTerry v. Ohio is a case that has been discussed and reviewed at length many times. It will always be a hot topic for many people. This set the standard for what a police officer can do with stop and frisk. A officer in Cleveland in 1963 saw a group of people who looked like they were casing a place. When he stop the individuals and frisked them, he found that two of them had guns. Terry, one of the individuals who had a gun, argued that the officer did not have probable cause to frisk them. This case created a new category reasonable suspicion, which the officer had reasonable suspicion that they were going to rob the place. -ClarkKent003
ReplyDeleteThis video explained the legal framework to stop and frisk very well. There's a case called Terry v. Ohio of 1968 that's been discussed multiple times with different people. This happened in Cleveland during 1963. Officer McFadden sees three guys talking together. Then all of a sudden one guy goes and looks inside a store window, then the next one goes and so on. They each do it about 4 times which becomes sketchy to officer McFadden. The 3 guys were named Terry, Chilton and Cats, when he stopped them he found a gun on Terry and Chilton but nothing on Cats. The guns were both loaded so he made an arrest and were both charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Terrys argument was that McFadden did not have probable cause to frisk them. Officer McFadden clearly didn't have probable cause and it was just a search. This then created reasonable suspicion and McFadden had reasonable suspicion that they were gonna rob the store. -brooklyn003
ReplyDeleteFrom this case terry vs Ohio case it created awareness to police officers when comes to stop and frisk situation. in 1968 the decision was made by united supreme court which held that the Fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest. stop and frisk can only be done when police officer has a reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed, engaged or about to be engaged in committing criminal conduct. GUSII 003
ReplyDeleteStop and frisk is a law that started in 1968. It is only allowed when an officer has reasonable suspicion on a citizen. In 1968, the Terry v. Ohio case took place. An officer had a suspicion that a robbery was about to occur, involving Terry and two other males. The argument was if the stop was legal. The officer saw the three men walking back and forth past a store, as if they were casing it. This gave him suspicion of criminal action. The officer had reasonable suspicion that they were planning to rob the store, which gave him the idea to stop and frisk. –pieface003
ReplyDeleteIn getting a clearer understanding of the Terry V. Ohio case of 1968 that brought about the challenges of “Stop and Frisk”, I am not sure why there was ever an issue. The officer involved clearly had probable cause to not only stop the individuals involved but also after the fact detain them. There was suspicion and probable cause. Not saying that in some case this “Stop and Frisk” procedure hasn’t been taken out of context and used as a form of harassment, prime example as Mr. McFadden explained “Latinos and Blacks being stopped more frequent then Whites” but again, in this case I feel the officer was justified in his actions. I also feel none of the 4th Amendment rights were violated in this case. Jadist003
ReplyDeleteI have always been kinda confused with this case. I think Terry v. Ohio is a touchy subject in general, and there is a lot of what ifs in this case. But this video lectured clarified a lot of the confusion for me. An officer thought that three subjects were casing a store to rob it. The officer thought that he had enough reasonable suspicion to search the three subjects, and while doing that he found guns on 2 out of the three subjects. But one subject whose name was terry believed that the officer unlawfully searched them. So then the man took this case to court to fight it, thus resulting in stop and frisk laws that we have today.
ReplyDeleteI-Like-Cereal003
The video was about Terry v. Ohio. The case was big when it comes to the procedure of stop and frisk. Officer McFadden was looking for pickpockets on the streets when he came across two individuals staking out a store front. They paced back and forth and then met back up with each other. The individuals walked around the corner and met another individual. Officer McFadden stopped them and proceeded to frisk the individuals. He found two handguns and they ended up getting charged with them. This case was argued on whether or not the officer had the right to go inside Terry’s coat pocket to find the gun. -CUBSFAN003
ReplyDeleteThis video gives a good explanation on what is stop and frisk and relates it back to the Terry v. Ohio case. How he explained the stop part of stop and frisk is stop your not going anywhere and the frisk which means I’m going to check you for weapons. But there are rules that go into play on how a officer is supposed to do a stop and frisk. Which comes from the case Terry v. Ohio from 1968. This case really shaped how America does part of its policing. A police officer can only stop and frisk you if the officer has reasonable suspicion. Batman003
ReplyDeleteIn this video the lecturer did very well in clearly explaining stop and frisk and telling us all of the important details of Terry v. Ohio. Before watching the video I was slightly confused on how officers made legal stops and frisked people, but after watching, I learned that an officer must have reasonable suspicion before frisking anyone. I also learned that stop and frisk are two separate actions. In the case of Terry v. Ohio the people who were frisked had believed they were illegally searched, so they took it to court and it was eventually ruled that the officer was in the right and it turned out to be a huge case that set the precedent for stop and frisk in our country. -Smokeybear003
ReplyDeleteI wasn't completely aware of how stop and frisks worked and what all of the rules are but now I know that in order to make a legal stop and frisk an officer has to have reasonable suspicion and they have to believe the person is carrying a weapon. Terry v. Ohio is what made stop and frisk. It set the ground rules and said that if there is reasonable suspicion in believing the officer or others are in danger they are allowed to stop someone and ask questions and also frisk them if they think it is necessary. Ark003
ReplyDeleteDuring this video lecture the instructor did a very good job clearly explain stop and frisk. He explained in detail Terry versus Ohio in a way that I thought made it very easy to understand. He explained how the stop part of stopping for stop and frisks means that the suspect is not able to go anywhere before they pat him or her down. The biggest thing in officer needs to stop someone is a legitimate reason for the stop such as reasonable suspicion.
ReplyDelete-RHB003
Terry v Ohio is a landmark case in which the supreme court ruled that as long as you have a reasonable suspicion you can stop someone on the street and frisk them. This is a big deal because it has informed how police operate in the United States and has stirred up quite a bit of controversy. I thought the professor did a great job explaining the case and it was good to get more information about what happened exactly. I had know in essence what Terry v Ohio was about but learning about the details was cool.
ReplyDeleteAvatar003
I believe the video did educate us more about the “Stop and Frisk”. However I do not agree with the force behind the Stop and frisk. The professor stated that officer Fabian had to basically fight a jacket off of the suspect. (Terry) I’m willing to consider the drastic change of sources of what happened that night. I also don’t believe in throwing a suspect up against a window and forcefully making the individuals turn around. But like I said I don’t truly know what exactly happened. The officer did have a reason beyond suspicion to stop them and ask them what they are doing. I think the officer should have radioed for back up to search the individuals. I think that would help prevent any line crossing. But to my understanding the officer was patrolling alone. Two suspects had a weapon on them which he was right to frisk them. However officers need to make sure they are following protocol. Casket003
ReplyDeleteSo this video was very informative on stop and frisk and how it can be taking and split into different sections. There has to be a suspicion criminal activity and to be armed and dangerous. Then they made it that they need just reasonable suspicion to frisk not search, this all changed because of the terry vs ohio case when a cop saw a group of guys acting suspicions stopped and frisked and found guns. They tried saying that it was found illegal therefore couldn't be used in trial supreme court did not go for it because of the reasonable suspicion
ReplyDelete-pizza003
So what I obtained from this video is that the explanation of stop and frisk from this video is different from what we saw in the second video. The Instructor was clear covering Terry V. Ohio discussing the overall view of the case. Terry V. Ohio is definitely a hot topic to cover for the time being especially with today’s advancement of social media and cameras. With Terry V. Ohio being the right that it is L.E.O’s should make sure to do the right thing and make sure that actually have reasonable suspicion and reason without doubt for stopping somebody. So with that being said how to we come to terms and doubts with proving that reasonable suspicion to start off the stop and frisk. Terry V. Ohio is something to make sure to stay on your toes when it comes to being an officer. -MrWadewilson003
ReplyDelete