Terry vs. Ohio is a famous historical case regarding the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. After reading the text of the 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Terry please discuss the following:
Have you ever read the text of the 4th Amendment? After reading, what are the protections granted to individuals under the 4th Amendment? In other words, what does it mean? The Supreme Court made a very important ruling that established a new standard of justification in Terry v. Ohio (1968). Explain. What is a Terry stop? What is the level of justification required? What is the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause?
Consider: The state of Utopia creates a ‘Stop-and-frisk‘ program wherein police officers of Utopia may stop and pat down people they consider suspicious without probable cause to stop. Statistics from the police chief of Utopia, credit the program for deterring crime and increasing arrests, but some criticize it as overzealous policing. Do you think the state-wide implementation of this program would be constitutional? Would you support such a program?
Q: After reading, what are the protections granted to individuals under the 4th Amendment?
A: The protections granted to individuals under the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ensures basic protection to citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures by any government agencies. Government agencies like the FBI, state police, etc., need to obtain proper prior warrants issued by a judge or a magistrate in order to search and/or seize any private individuals or their properties. The warrant must contain specific information as to the date, place of search and the reason/s for the search/seizure also called as probable cause for the search or seizure. This is an excellent citizen safeguard in the U.S. Constitution. The 4th Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights.
Q: In other words, what does it mean?
A: In layman or simple language it means citizens protection from random, arbitrary action by any government agency/body. There are Constitutional safeguards with the checks and balances on the federal or state government agencies. This right protects citizens from wrongful treatment by the police and prevents misuse of power by the government authorities. This also means that any evidence obtained against a defendant/accused in violation of the 4th Amendment is inadmissable in court and cannot be used in a trial against a defendant.
Q: The Supreme Court made a very important ruling that established a new standard of justification in Terry v. Ohio (1968). Explain.
A: The U.S. Supreme Court passed a landmark judgment in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), on a 8-1 verdict. The very important ruling in this case was the creation of an exception to the 4th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution pertaining to the prohibition of unreasonable searches and/or seizures. This court ruling granted powers to a police officer to stop and search a citizen on the streets on the basis of reasonable suspicion against a citizen without the need to show probable cause. A police officer cannot be in violation of the 4th Amendment if he/she has sufficient reason to believe that a citizen has committed a crime or is about to commit crime. Reasonable suspicion must be just and fair and be able to be justifiable and cannot be random, arbitrary or based on mere suspicion.
Q: What is a Terry stop?
A: Based on the above very important court ruling, a 'Terry stop' as it has come to be known is when a police officer stops a citizen to question and/or on-person frisk/searches. A brief detention by the police to stop and frisk a citizen without arrest and based on reasonable suspicion against a citizen is called a Terry stop. Terry stop is also called as 'Terry frisk', or 'stop and frisk'. This brief stop and search was later extended to vehicle stops by the police to check the drivers documents and inside the vehicle.
Q: What is the level of justification required?
A: The level of justification required is known as 'reasonable suspicion.' Reasonable suspicion means that a police officer must have sufficient ground/s to suspect a citizen in order to stop and frisk them. The level of justification is based on specific and articulable facts taken together with rational inferences from those facts as stated in the judgment of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), against a specific individual and cannot be random. The police officer cannot stop and search a citizen arbitrarily based on a hunch but needs to first be sure of a reason to stop the citizen. Reasonable suspicion is a standard of proof in law.
Q: What is the difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause?
A: While reasonable suspicion is also a standard of proof in law, it is a lower level of proof than probable cause. Based on reasonable suspicion, a police officer can detain / stop and search/frisk an individual citizen but cannot make an arrest. During the course of reasonable suspicion if a police officer during the stop and firsk or Terry stop finds any incriminating evidence against an individual, then the police officer can develop a probable cause for arrest of that individual. Probable cause is essential before framing any charges and making an arrest.
Q: Do you think the state-wide implementation of this program would be constitutional?
A: State-wide implementation of a stop-and-frisk program would be Constitutional provided there is a properly laid down procedure based on rules. The Constitutional test for any laws passed by the legislative needs to stand up to scrutiny in a Constitutional court of law. This would be its real test. The state legislature should have passed a state Constitutional amendment which brings transparency, clarity along with accountability on the use of such a 'stop-and-frisk' program by the police department. Having built in safeguards like a public complaints grievance mechanism and a whistle-blower complaints system would ensure some accountability of these police officers under the law. The onus should always be on whether a police officer can later articulate and justify his/her actions in a case against an individual. The statistics based on each police stations and police officers use of this program must be published on the website of the state police department and fall under the purview of the Freedom of Information Act to ensure public accountability by the police department. Furthermore, having a strong and proactive state human rights commission would put systemic safeguards and checks on blatant misuse by any police officer and a police officer should face ciminal/tort and disciplinary action if found guilty of abuse of his/her power. Once certain public safegaurds are put in place, this program would become very useful in curtailing crime and can be seen as Constitutional. A very important safeguard for citizens is inadmissability of evidence against a defendant/accused in a trial if these safeguards or procedures were violated and cannot be justified by a police officer.
Q: Would you support such a program?
A: Provided the program has built-in systemic accountability with robust safeguards in place, this program may be useful in prevention of crimes and torts. The true test to support such a program would be if it could stand up and passed scrutiny in a court of law in its application and implementation. Another accountability measure would be if police officer wise statistics can be devised and publicly disclosed. This would show clearly on the use of this program by police officers and a high number reported against a police officer could imply misuse and require investigating. Then, this program can be supported to prevent abuse. Statistics published on number of crimes prevented using this program can be a useful tool in knowing and tracking its efficacy and usefulness in the long term. This would be based on the utilitarianism theory of the greatest good to the greatest number.
Terry vs. Ohio is a famous historical case regarding the 4th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution....
The state of Utopia creates a ‘Stop-and-frisk‘ program wherein police officers of Utopia may stop and pat down people they consider suspicious without probable cause to stop. Statistics from the police chief of Utopia, credit the program for deterring crime and increasing arrests, but some criticize it as overzealous policing. Do you think the state-wide implementation of this program would be constitutional? Would you support such a program?