Source: https://www.paperdue.com/topic/terry-v-ohio-essays
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:16:08+00:00

Document:
" (392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968).
Terry v. State of Ohio 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1968. Retrieved July 10, 2007 at http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/terry%20v%20ohio.html .
Oyez Project, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). (2007). Retrieved July 10, 2007 at http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_67/.
Terry v Ohio (Supreme Court, 1968) -- Found that the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure is not violated when an officer of the law stops a suspect on the street and frisks them with probably cause to arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is about to commit a crime, or is in the process of committing a crime. Subsequent rulings using Terry allow for a vehicle to be constitutionally searched if there is reasonable suspicion and a 2004 ruling that certain state laws requiring suspects to identify themselves were indeed constitutional.
Kirby v Illinois (Supreme Court, 1972) -- Court holds that a suspect does not have Sixth Amendment rights prior to the beginnings of a criminal prosecution- those rights to counsel attach during an official criminal prosecution. A pre-indictment interview is not within the bounds of a formal criminal proceeding; but only an information gathering situation.
Manson v Brathwaite (Supreme Court, 1977) -- Court found that the lower courts should take the totality of circumstance in eyewitness testimony for criminal procedure. If eyewitness testimony is done by a trained law enforcement officer, then rights under the 14th Amendment are not violated.
Arizona v Gant -- The essential issue in Arizona v Gant is whether a law enforcement officer can conduct an automobile search based on suspicion only. If police stop a car on a speeding violation, they must have probably cause or some apparent knowledge to search the vehicle for another crime; for example, drugs. A warrantless search requires that law enforcement either feel in imminent danger, or have more than reasonable suspicion that something illegal has taken place (e.g. smell of marijuana, drug paraphernalia present, etc.) Further, this evidence must be factual, buttressed, and not opinion.
Terry v. Ohio case, providing information on the concerned parties, case facts, previous proceedings, arguments and issues, court decision and rationale for the decision.
Terry v. Ohio introduce the Terry frisk into police procedure, allowing officers to have the right to stop and frisk or do a surface search of individuals on the street even without probable cause. All the officer would need would be to have a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched had committed, was about to commit or was in the act of committing a crime. The Supreme Court stated that the officer's suspicion had to be "specific" and able to be put into words -- that is to say, the officer could not just say he had a "hunch" that the person searched was about to violate the law: the officer would have to be able to point to a specific characteristic that made him suspect the individual in question.
On appeal, Terry argued that the conviction should be thrown out because the search that produced the evidence of the weapon in his possession was improper because it was an impermissible search of his person without a warrant or probable cause as required by the 4th Amendment (Schmalleger, 2009).
The cases of Terry v. Ohio (1968) and State v. Perkins (2003) both deal with issues of search and seizure as explained in the fourth Amendment to the United States' Constitution. According to this Amendment, police or government officials are not allowed to perform unlawful searches and seizures. This was written in response to how the colonists lived under British rule wherein soldiers could enter the homes of any colonists at any time, and take any goods and materials they desired regardless of whether they had a cause to do so.
Terry v. Ohio. (1968). 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct.
3) the method by which the search was conducted was outside of the directives that had been given by the school with regard to searching book bags and purses and using wands for students' bodies.
The fourth ranked issues were the fact that the substance in the pipe turned out to be cocaine. If the search is deemed illegal then we will have to accept a paraphernalia charge and argue against the possession of drugs charged with the argument that the pipe should not have been tested as it was gained as poisoned fruit.
When we prepare the defense we need to concentrate on the first issue which is the search itself.
Czubaj, Camilia Anne (1995) a legal analysis of school searches.
In order to enforce the revenue laws, English authorities made use of writs of assistance, which were general warrants authorizing the bearer to enter any house or other place to search for and seize "prohibited and uncustomed" goods, and commanding all subjects to assist in these endeavors. he writs once issued remained in force throughout the lifetime of the sovereign and six months thereafter. When, upon the death of George II in 1760, the authorities were required to obtain the issuance of new writs, James Otis, who attacked such writs on libertarian grounds and who asserted the invalidity of the authorizing statutes because they conflicted with English constitutionalism, led opposition. Otis lost and the writs were issued and utilized, but his arguments were much cited in the colonies not only on the immediate subject but also with regard to judicial review.
The language of the provision which became the Fourth Amendment underwent some modest changes on its passage through the Congress, and it is possible that the changes reflected more than a modest significance in the interpretation of the relationship of the two clauses. Madison's introduced version provided "The rights to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized." As reported from committee, with an inadvertent omission corrected on the floor, the section was almost identical to the introduced version, and the House defeated a motion to substitute "and no warrant shall issue" for "by warrants issuing" in the committee draft. The word "secured" was changed to "secure" and the phrase "against unreasonable searches and seizures" was reinstated. In some fashion, the rejected amendment was inserted in the language before passage by the House and is the language of the ratified constitutional provision.
Not every incident where an officer ascertains information is considered a "search." An officer who views something which is publicly viewable, for instance, by looking through the window of a house from the street, is not conducting a "search" of the house. In Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that there is no search unless an individual has an "expectation of privacy" and the expectation is "reasonable" - that is, it is one that society is prepared to recognize. So, for example, there is generally no search when officers look through garbage because there is no expectation that garbage is private. Similarly, there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials, although Congress has placed statutory restrictions on such monitoring. This doctrine sometimes leads to somewhat unexpected results; in Florida v. Riley (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that there was no expectation of privacy, and thus no search, where officers hovered in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house and conducted surveillance. The Supreme Court has also ruled that there can be no expectation of privacy in illegal activity. Therefore, investigations that reveal only illegal activity, such as some use of drug sniffing dogs, are not searches.
The case reveals how the police officers have obtained the cocaine evidence by searching a man house without a warrant making the man to be charged for possession of cocaine. Objective of this paper is to argue whether the cocaine evidence against the man is admissible since the police officers search the man's house and obtain the evidence without a warrant.
A warrant refers to a legal order legally signed by a judge authorizing the police to search a specific location or private property of an individual. While the Fourth Amendment stipulates that a police officer requires a warrant to search a home or property of a private citizen, nevertheless, the prosecutor can argue that the police officers do not require a warrant to search the man house, thus, the evidence should be admissible.
Cornell University Law School (2014). Fourth Amendment. Law School. USA.
invasion of privacy under the fourth amendment. It briefly looks into the changes that have come about in this law and also the way that it is enforced.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.