Talk:Terry v. Ohio

message: Hello, I'd like to suggest more historical context. In particular:
* tail end of liberal Supreme Court
* decision was narrow and cautious, in response to 60's race riots, urban crime, etc
* start of 40+ years of conservative Supreme Court
Two good references:
Seahawk01 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add more historical context 

message: can also mention:
* Sibron v. New York (1968)
* Peters v. New York (1968)
set stage for Terry v. Ohio  
Seahawk01 (talk) 06:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  other cases 

message: objects to my recent changes to the lead sentence. He believes it is unnecessary to include a reference to the "armed" and/or "dangerous" aspects of the case's holding. Hopefully we can discuss the issues here and reach an acceptable consensus.  White Whirlwind  22:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the difference between the facts of a case and the holding of that same case may at times be confusing, but it is important to correctly state what a case holds. The holding of this case does not limit its application to cases involving "dangerous" criminal activity. By all means, though, if you have a reliable source that supports your contrary belief, please present it. Arllaw (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, I'll try to survey some this weekend. I think you misunderstood my objection in my edit summary. We had a problem with our inclusion of the term "frisk". We were dancing between two different formulations: first, that Terry held that a law enforcement officer can stop any person he or she reasonably suspects of criminal activity, which is true; and second, that Terry held that a law enforcement officer can stop and frisk any person he or she reasonably suspects of criminal activity, which is false. The distinction is fundamental to the case's holding, as seen in Mimms and its other progeny. If we're going to be exceedingly careful with our lead sentences, then we must do so here, too.  White Whirlwind  09:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

text:  If the issue results from the conflation of two separate aspects of Terry, the question of when a person may be stopped and the question of whether that person may also be subjected to a pat-down, it would be sensible to separate the two issues so as to make the holding of the case clear to readers. Arllaw (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead sentence discussion 

message: The wikipedia entry mentions this right now: "One of the men, John W. Terry, walked down the street". However had, there does not seem to be an entry at wikipedia about John Terry. I assume he may no longer be alive (google search yields a death year of 2004 but perhaps this is someone else). It would be nice if wikipedia could add an article about him, and the conviction time to serve in prison. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:3AD5:47FF:FE18:CC7F (talk) 02:29, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Terry 

message: It comes to light John Woodall Terry was a black man.  This was the same U.S. Supreme Court (1968) that instituted the practice of "Qualified Immunity" obstructing lawsuits against police who took actions against civil (Constitutional) rights workers.  Against SCOTUS oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  It proves the judges were more than likely racists or at the very least biased against blacks.  The ruling was 8-1, with Justice William Orville Douglas dissenting.
You only have the word of a police detective that they (John Terry and associates) seem to be "casing a job" (only words, but no evidence). And ruling may have gone against John W. Terry because he was black.
 4th Amendment violation, protection from unreason search (invasion of privacy)
 9th Amendment violation, Laws shall not be construed to deny or lessen other rights retained by the people.
Its ruling shouldn't be relied on as its application is very narrow. "Frisk" or feeling out a weapon (usually the reason for frisking someone) through clothing by touch is not a common situation. And it may have only have gone against John Woodall Terry because he was black. As it is in violation of the 4th and 9th Amendment. Instead, you may want to examine the person using it to further erode the 4th Amendment rights.
At most, it allows obtaining evidence, through feeling through clothing (frisking), as admissible evidence.
73.225.182.47 (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: A talk page, and Wikipedia as a whole, is not a forum for general discussion.  White Whirlwind  20:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Ruling 

message: Search incident to lawful arrest 71.84.42.68 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are trying to make a suggestion about how to improve the article on Terry v. Ohio, please spell out what your thoughts are. A hint is not sufficiently clear to get the job done. (Same comment on your other entry just below.) PDGPA (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  SILA 

message: Exclusion** 71.84.42.68 (talk) 14:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motion to Supress 

message: --- 71.84.42.68 (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best Evidence Rule