Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialmotionseizure
seizure

Related Cases

Ramirez v. Mukasey
View Case »
Zhu v. Deng
View Case »
Tutu v. Blackman
View Case »
Zhao v. Gonzales
View Case »
Zheng v. Pogash
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Terry v. Ohio

Facts

Petitioner Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon after a police officer, Detective Martin McFadden, observed him and a companion acting suspiciously on the street. Officer McFadden, suspecting they were about to commit a robbery, approached them, identified himself, and conducted a pat-down search, during which he discovered a pistol in Terry's overcoat pocket. The trial court denied Terry's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from this search, leading to his conviction.

Petitioner Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon after a police officer, Detective Martin McFadden, observed him and a companion acting suspiciously on the street.

Issue

Whether the admission of the revolvers in evidence violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth.

Whether the admission of the revolvers in evidence violated petitioner's rights under the Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth.

Rule

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, but allows for limited 'stop and frisk' procedures based on reasonable suspicion.

The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, but allows for limited 'stop and frisk' procedures based on reasonable suspicion.

Analysis

The court found that Officer McFadden had reasonable suspicion based on his observations of Terry and his companion's behavior, which justified the 'stop and frisk.' The officer's experience and the context of the situation led him to believe that the men were armed and potentially dangerous, thus making the search reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The court found that Officer McFadden had reasonable suspicion based on his observations of Terry and his companion's behavior, which justified the 'stop and frisk.'

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment that upheld Terry's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, concluding that the police conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The court affirmed the judgment that upheld Terry's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, concluding that the police conduct was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the police officer's actions were justified based on reasonable suspicion.

The State prevailed in the case, as the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reasoning that the police officer's actions were justified based on reasonable suspicion.

You must be