Terry v. Ohio (Stop & Frisk) - Landmark Cases - Episode #12
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 авг 2016
- We are well aware of the authority and power of law enforcement. But did you know that probable cause or an arrest warrant is not needed to stop an individual and frisk them. That was the ruling in Terry v. Ohio in 1968. “Stop-and-Frisk” is a tactic used by law enforcement in an effort to fight crime, however, it has proven to be very dangerous to the average citizen’s liberty.
Full Cases can be found at: scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...
Definitions:
Issue- Question the court must answer.
Holding- courts ruling
Objective Knowledge - reasonable, broad-minded, actual knowledge.
Dissent- An explicit disagreement by one or more judges with the decision of the majority on a case before them.
I've recently launched a new channel focused on personal and professional growth. If you're interested in learning more about building your PsyCap (H.E.R.O. - Hope, Efficacy, Resilience, & Optimism), head over to my new channel, “TheUnlimitedLab” where I use the same whiteboard style you know and love to share strategies, tips, and insights to live an unlimited life.
Here's the link: / channel
The law discussed in this video is general in nature and is not legal advice. This video is purely intended for educational purposes. The video is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. You are highly encouraged to seek professional legal advice in your State should you find yourself dealing with the subject matter of this video. The subject matter is not specific to any individual or State law. The video is published for the sole use of education and it is solely based on the opinions and knowledge of the publisher.
Sources:
scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cg...
www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pd...
www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...
legal-dictionary.thefreedictio... 
Кино
Amendment 4
- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
One of Terry's nephews became a police officer as did one of Chilton's nephews. Chilton had no criminal record before this incident, but did 13 months in an Ohio prison on a weapons charge the next year. He was killed in a shootout while he and three others were trying to rob a drug store in Columbus in 1967, so he didn't live long enough to learn the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.
I'm reading this case in my Criminal Procedure class. Thank you for this video! I agree with your opinion BTW.
Thanks so much for explaining it. Great job 😊
The word “and” is kept out of the video text but is included in the narrative text. Important and a point of confusion. Dilution if I’ve ever seen it
Nice animation and great explanation.
Thank you.
- Protection of Rights to Life, Liberty, and Property
No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
You should do a video on Pennsylvania v mims
Hi, great animation! How did you do it?? I have to present a case soon and this will be very helpful!
Great Video!!
I got a DWI crossing the street horizontally, in my private community, from a private swim area to my private driveway. I refused to give this same officer my ID a month prior to this incident. Did he do this to retaliate, and can I beat this DWI?
stop and frisk works...I was a 17yo up to no good and when I seen my friends get pat down, I reassessed my own affairs and quit my shenanigans.
This was in the Guliani era and my neighborhood in the South Bronx took a turn for the better
Unconstitutional yes, but boy did it work.
That's good to hear
It also worked well for the Nazi's. But this is AMERICA. idiot.
You're the type of person you to yell "waysism" when you hear a different opinion
You are the type of person who will give up freedom for security. We have the 4th amendment exactly to stop people like you.
@@jackgarand7284 It's extraordinarily hard to be stopped and frisked when you're doing nothing wrong.
Where were you when I was in law school?! But thanks for being here for the bar
a criminal complaint by a citizen is not enough to arrest a person
unless in hot pursuit or having witness a crime the police do not have the constitutional authority to arrest without a warrant
Thank you for the video. I really help me to understand the Terry Frisk. I will have to disagree with you on the probable cause. I think reasonable suspicion it enough for the frisk. Thank you once again.
Are you in law enforcement?
a crminal complaint is not enough to arrest a citizen without a warrant
it violates the 4th amendment to arrest a person without a warrant
its 100% illegal to be arrested without a warrant
I would say since there was reasonable suspicion that the two men were committing a crime, that it was justified. Remember, the Fourth Amendment protects people from UNreasonable searches and seizures. Unfortunately, the reasonable suspicion part was abused by authorities way too often, and they got away with it way too much.
Looks like Terry saw this video and hit the dislike button!
Could be a troll.
If Probable Cause was required to make every stop to begin an investigation, the only crimes that would EVER be solved are the one's directly observed by police. And that accounts for a phenomenally low statistic... like 2% or less. So if your grandma was mugged and beaten within an inch of her life and she said, "there he is right there!" you are essentially saying, sorry, can't stop this person and can't stop them from rifling through their pockets or reaching in their waistband because I personally did not witness the crime. More to the point, since you don't believe in Reasonable Suspicion, if you see 3 masked men outside of a bank at 3am, can't investigate them because you don't have Probable Cause. Forget that fact that they are in an unusual place at an unusual time and behaving in objectively suspicious ways. And please understand that a Terry Stop is completely different from Stop and Frisk states that have essentially NO Reasonable Suspicion. I am totally against that. But that's not what a Terry Stop actually entails. It must be based on articulable suspicion
More concerned that the second amendment doesn’t apply to concealed arms now?
federal rules of evidence
attendance
I disagree. I am a law enforcement officer and it can be extremely dangerous. Even on routine non-aggressive calls. People have weapons. If I have reasonable suspicion, that is a different level from MERE suspicion, in which case if anything intrusive were to occur we would be infringing on an individuals rights. If we have reasonable suspicion, we are beginning an 'investigation' of sorts anyways, so that person has already alerted themselves as suspicious due to varying factors depending on the circumstances. If I have reasonable suspicion, there's a reason I am talking to you. And I have to be able to articulate why in the court of law before I make contact. If I am making contact, then I am going to make sure it is safe for me to talk to you, hence a 'terry frisk'.
Mere suspicion is where it gets hairy. That's basically our "spidy senses". If our spidy senses are tingling, that does not give us a right to do anything beyond observe. If we have reasonable suspicion, we are allowed to check for WEAPONS ONLY in a terry frisk. That means there is some sort of factor that has gone a level above the first level of suspicion. Basically what I'm trying to say is it is not unwarranted.
My opinion has flip flopped over the course of taking different law/law enforcement classes, but once you're a cop and you have reached different levels of suspicion in PRACTICE then you'll likely be more well rounded in your education of the terry frisk and understand why these procedures are in place. Thanks for the video!
>Unrelated. Imagine having a type of search by law enforcement being named after you. so weird
Why don't you be even safer and just search everyone you see during your shift? Imagine how safe you'd be if each state banned clothing in public. Honestly, I'm tired of having my Rights infringed upon for this "officer safety" nonsense. There is no dearth of thugs among your esteemed ranks who use their powers to bolster their egos. Despite all of these court cases that leave the police more than enough wiggle room to get by with their crimes when dealing with Citizens and violating their unalienable rights, and the "qualified immunity", and the weight given to police officers' veracity while acting under the color of law, there is still crime galore out there. Believe it or not, people get away with crimes all the time. Why should my Rights be infringed upon because of the actions of others?
That being said, there are too many criminals with multiple convictions on the streets, but that's not your fault.
@@valentinius62 I see what you're saying! But I am only frisking someone if I have reasonable suspicion. If they've done something to alert me, an experienced law enforcement officer who can recognize certain behaviors. I will say that I always choose to be more cautious with my searches because I do not want to infringe on someone's rights. I want to keep my badge. I don't really see wiggle room from my perspective. If we mess up even just slightly, we get stuck to the desk and our gear taken away. (Rightfully so! We should know the laws and what rights we have before violating someone's rights!)
I'm not doing more than I need to. For instance, I responded to a call of a Hispanic male adult breaking into a woman's house with a gun, threatening to kill her and the cops who show up. We found a person matching the description in the park hiding in slides, just a couple houses down. We approached him and he was keeping his hands in his pockets but kept them out when ordered to. We did a frisk. In this scenario a frisk was pertinent to officer safety. We had reasonable suspicion but not reasonable cause (took less than a minute to have reasonable cause after the frisk and proceed with arrest)
I am in the military so we have different vehicle 'search' rules for federal installations. I stopped a man, following procedure, and asked him to step out for a quick glance in the doors, trunk, and glove box. He declared he had a concealed carry in his vehicle. Okay, no issue. He was very polite, professional, and cooperative. There was no reason for me to be alarmed. I checked his CCW then turned him around (because he cannot come on base even with the proper paperwork). He was a black male adult, super tall and big. If he wanted to fight me he could definitely do some good damage (I am a 5'5 female). Because of his behavior and up front behavior of his CCW, I had absolutely no reason to believe there was anything suspicious going on. I did not have reasonable suspicion. I didn't even have mere suspicion. I didn't frisk him, I didn't even search his vehicle further (which I do have the right to do acting as a sentry) because the CCW was enough to turn him around. I had no reason to look for anything else. I know this one is a little bit hairier because we have different rules regarding federal installation, so not the BEST example.
I know I'm just kind of shitting out words here but I hope you understand what I'm saying. I'm not out looking to violate anyone's rights. I'm not out trying to find a reason to arrest people. I'm following procedure and upholding law. Not trying to stop people from living their lives. The above mentioned bma was delivering food, so we delivered it for him haha. Not trying to get him in trouble with work! I love my job but I hope to get a law degree when I'm done serving. I think we should all be well-informed of the law so we can do our jobs the right way.
@@dangernugget4731 Hey, I'm OK with a police officer detaining and even frisking someone if they have reasonable articulable suspicion, like a house just broken into with a crowbar and 100 yards away is a guy fitting the description and carrying a crowbar. Lock him up. I'm just pointing out the many, many instances where police have nowhere near that kind of probable cause and have detained and even arrested people over frankly nothing beyond their personal feelings. That's what I am against. There are tons and tons of videos on RUclips showing such behavior, especially when it comes to filming in public. Would be interested to see you over at some of those and offer your professional opinion on some of those stops.
@@valentinius62 As abundant as those videos may seem, keep in mind there hundreds of stops going on at any given moment in the US. My old department had call after call after call. Sometimes we'd be doing U turn after U turn because a call with slightly more priority comes out while we're on the way to another, and then an even HIGHER priority comes out. (We probably look dumb to anyone watching us keep turning lol)
There is constant steady interaction between law enforcement and the public that it's bound to occasionally go wrong. That's human nature. What we can (and do) do as law enforcement officers is go the extra mile and train on our off time. Do everything in our power to prevent misbehavior of law enforcement officers. It varies department to department, but the larger departments with a more professional structure have ways to report officers for misconduct, and it's encouraged. A cop showing bad judgement doesn't last. Smaller departments (small town, 10 or less cops who are all buds, went to high school together, whatever) will back each other up and show bias on calls. That can happen in bigger departments but fortunately it's a lot less likely. During briefings, and days set aside for training, we always pull up cases where a cop did something wrong and we dissect what happened. I'm aware of all the larger cases and have done hours and hours of discussion, research, and critical thinking on the topic in law enforcement and school settings. It's a great tool because at any given moment you can relate the call you're on to past cases you've studied and it gives you more metaphorical tools in your belt. I really love my job, and I really love studying and analyzing LE interactions. I just love talking to people, I really think I have the best job in the world.
Aaaanyways, long story short we DO discuss and analyze stops, 'bad' search/use of force and 'justified' search/use of force. If someone does something wrong, they get desked, suspension pending an investigation, further training, and we all get a brief where we painstakingly go over step-by-step what happened. The majority of departments are like this. Not all. Some just brush it off and keep making the same mistakes. It almost makes you want to do mass regulation but then that in itself is scary, depending on our politicians and lawmakers. It's hard to find a balance.
@@dangernugget4731 OK, but right now Massachusetts in the midst of a scandal so severe they had to disband an entire troop and many officers are facing jail time. It's not the first time in these United States that there have been such widespread criminality in various police forces, big an small. I went on Google the other day looking for that particular story and was stunned to see all of the state troopers from various states that had been arrested within the last month. I can't say what percent of officers do the wrong thing, but I firmly believe it's more than just a "few bad apples" as they like to say. Police officers enjoy a special trust and should be held to a higher standard, rather like public school teachers and other public servants are. In our state, a public school teacher can lose their license and pension for "moral turpitude" off the clock even if no crime was involved. There needs to be more oversight and less excusing of people's crimes simply because they wear a badge. I believe the behavior of these individuals is putting others at risk as it emboldens criminals because they know they will get sympathy from many if they injure or murder a police officer.
William Katz was white the cartoon depicted him as a black man
i noticed all the bad guys were black police were white seems more commentary then educational
Why is it Relevant
You missed one thing. The “reasonable doubt” has to come from articulable facts which may include a subjects demeanor and if he or she is in a high crime area. In the Terry case, the officer obviously thwarted a crime and seized an illegally carried handgun. So how can you agree with Douglas if these are the tools the police obviously need in order to keep society safe? This was a reasonable search and seizure. Your decent is on the loosing end my friend.
You're missing the point. Precedent has now given the authority to do so even if the police are wrong. Yes in this instance Dectective McFadden made the right call, but not all scenarios will be the same. You're opinion is based on the assumption that the police will always prevent a crime when they do the frisk. The dissenting argument is that the case makes it lawful to stop anyone that you suspect may commit a crime or may pose a danger. You're essentially taking action before a potential crime may occur, when the fact of the matter is that there is a chance one might not have occur in the first place.
So you'd be ok then with the detective letting them go because there was no probable cause then those guys robbing and maybe killing someone? It sounds like you maybe up to no good and dont want to be caught. I would have no problem with being searched at any time because of safety. But then that's only my opinion. Good video tho.
j r & Soul Survivor "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin -
@@DCR053 Ben Franklin doesnt live in our times.
j r .. and neither will the constitution if we keep it up.
That's not just your opinion, Supreme Court agreed 8-1. Reasonable suspicion is a probable cause to detain and frisk. Watch Live PD, they "detain" all the time. Odor of marijuana is reasonable suspicion to search the car and everyone in it. Almost always they find something. Leave the bag at home just take the one hitter and if you're cool the cop might let you go.
Amendment 4
- Protection from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.