Search results
Terry v. Ohio: Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may ...
- 70 U.S. 155
U.S. Supreme Court The Thompson, 70 U.S. 3 Wall. 155 155...
- Opinions by Volume
When someone formally cites a Supreme Court decision, they...
- 70 U.S. 155
13 mar 2017 · Terry v. Ohio was the landmark case that provided the name for the “Terry stop.” It established the constitutionality of a limited search for weapons when an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is afoot based on the circumstances.
21 lut 2024 · Quick Summary. Terry (defendant) and Chilton were observed by a police officer and suspected of planning a robbery. Upon confrontation and a pat-down search by the officer, weapons were found on both men, leading to charges against them. The legal dispute centered on whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Brief Fact Summary. The Petitioner, John W. Terry (the “Petitioner”), was stopped and searched by an officer after the officer observed the Petitioner seemingly casing a store for a potential robbery. The officer approached the Petitioner for questioning and decided to search him first.
In the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court grappled with the complex interplay between an individual's Fourth Amendment rights and the practical needs of police officers to ensure safety and prevent crime.
19 lis 2019 · Terry v. Ohio was a landmark case because the Supreme Court ruled that officers could conduct investigatory searches for weapons based on reasonable suspicions. Stop-and-frisk had always been a police practice, but validation from the Supreme Court meant that the practice became more widely accepted. In 2009, the Supreme Court cited Terry v.
In Terry vs. Ohio, the nation’s highest court affirmed the ruling of Cuyahoga County Judge Bernard Friedman, which defined the limits of police action for when they “stop and frisk” suspects based on their suspicion of criminal activity.
