Terry v Ohio Case Law

In this short, Dennis explains the legality of Terry v Ohio.

FACTS OF THE CASE
Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

QUESTION
Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

CONCLUSION
The Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.

[streetcoptraining]

How to join the Street Cop Community

[arudeboy]

I agree officers need to give a reason for the stop. However, are they required to explain to a motorist their artuculable reasonably suspicion? I always thought RS is debated in court, not the stteet.

[themikeymikechannel]

So your saying cops know the future of when a crime is going to be committed or has been futuristicly

Why do some cops do stupid things to get put in prison jailed or resign after getting in trouble for unlawful actions?

[jjuggernaut]

@1:29 “when you are documenting, ….”
Civilian translation “if you frisk make sure you write down that you were SCARED!!!” That way you can do what ever you want!
Make sure you are SCARED of every single person on the street, so you can violate rights!

[jonsingle]

So Terry v Ohio....where the supreme court stripped our 4th amendment rights from us? ....that case law .

[stagename]

The problem is police lie and no matter what say they were in fear for their safety

[michaelpo]

Unfortunately some public safety associates have mistaken suspicion for power. Mr. Terry was a violent armed offender with multiple contacts with local police and became known by the detectives and patrolling uniform because of his reputation for dangerous and costly activities.

So now suspicion is such a broad opening for illegal detainment and false arrest among the most average everyday law abiding citizens. Police have a very complicated duty but I'm not ok with all the possibilities of just saying "I'm suspicious"
The intention was that"probable cause" not ego driven warped misrepresentations or feelings. REPEAL Terry vs Ohio

[michaelperez]

This is why THE PEOPLE LAW was made. They have their laws, we have OUR LAWS NOW. And yes, they are F up.

[andrewfelker]

The actual story in Terry vs. Ohio might be worth looking into.
"Reasonable suspicion" was established very thoroughly in the Terry case.

[hafsalinda]

With 27 state legislatures (a majority of the united states)agreeing on constitutional carry for their citizens Terry vs Ohio should be deleted from the common law in those states, as it is no longer a crime to carry open or concealed per the state law. There can be no pistol contraband in those states to give further reason to search and sieze. Terry is thus modified in those states giving no armed and dangerous rational to act as the legislature permits such carry (since 2021 texas)
Permitless carry is approved for all who can legally possess a handgun either concealed or open. 1965 was a whole different time.

It's time we recognise that and act accordingly.

[jjuggernaut]

Why don’t you do a video about when a cop is allowed to DEMAND ID??? It’s obviously NEEDED!!!!

Since this was another video about Terry v Ohio and you didn’t say anything!

[BlackAmericast]

Keep teaching them to lie and violate our rights. Tell them how to write the report so they can pretend to know the law. But they really don’t. an they just do first and manipulate later to find a crime

[tax]

That only applies to the frisk. The stop can be for a suspected crime. You fit that description of a suspect who happens to be near that crime scene, or you happen to be in a vehicle 🚗 which fits the vehicle used during that crime. It’s a temporary stop and your detained but the officer may not have the probable cause to make a arrest. In a situation like this the victim or witness will be brought to where the suspect was detained and a field show up will be conducted. They will either say it was you or it wasn’t, and explain exactly what your suspected of doing. If we have a yes, you get arrested. I’d not you get to leave. I’d you resisted that stop you get arrested for obstruction and resisting arrest.