Talk:Terry v. Ohio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high-importance within WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

[edit] Race

What about the race of the two suspects? They were both black men. (See 72 St. John's L. Rev. 727; linked at: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3735/is_199807/ai_n8787005#continue).

I wasn't sure where to put this, because it isn't an 'official' part of the supreme court's opinion. However the line of cases and the Criminal Procedures that have followed Terry, touch heavily on race. I can't really edit the main page right now because I'm procrastinating from studying for my crim pro final! But discussion of race should definitely be a part of the case that defined the 'investigatory stop' which has made grounds for so many driving while black or brown stops.

A quote from the LR article above:

"When I put [Detective McFadden] on as my witness on the motion to suppress, I, of course, did not know what he would say. All I could rely upon was what my clients had told me. I could not believe his testimony as it came out of his mouth on the stand. He said to us that he had seen these two fellows standing across the street from him, and he described them as being two Negroes, and then he talked of the white fellow who came up to them and talked with them. Then he went on down the street. Mac then admitted to us they weren't doing anything, except one of the black fellows would leave the other one, walk down the street a little bit, turn around, peer into the window at either the United Airlines or the jewelry store window, then walk back up to where the other fellow was. Then the other fellow would take a walk in a similar manner."

PBF 01:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is misleading as it suggests that a reasonable suspicion that a crime is or is about to be committed is all that is needed for a weapons frisk. Terry vs. Ohio requires a reasonable suspicion that the subject is armed and dangerous and can pose a threat to officer safety. Therefore, an officer pulling someone over for a traffic infraction would not automatically have the right to do a weapons frisk, unless he had further specific and articulable facts, combined with his or her totality of experience, that would lead to a reasonable suspicion that the subject was armed and dangerous.

In Terry vs. Ohio these suspicions were consistent with the crime the officer suspected was about to be committed, which is why these points are often confused.

From V[34]:

We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot *and* that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and **1885 others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

Notice the *and* in the above (my emphasis). This goes to prove the point of the last discussion entry.

Justice White in his affirming opinion voiced something like the present (incorrect) article, but this is not part of the official ruling.

Illiana Montez Love Ramiro Senteno

[edit] Edit of 31 May 2007

This edit was mine--Wikipedia somehow lost track of me before I saved the changes. JeffConrad 02:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)