Martin J

Introduction The ‘”Terry Doctrine” derived from Terry. Ohio, 392 US. (1968). The court held law enforcement (“police officer”) may briefly detain a suspect reasonably believed to be involved in criminal activity. A police officer may “stop and frisk,” or simply perform a “Terry frisk” of an individual. The Terry Doctrine standard later included temporary detentions of persons in vehicles. (Deciding the Stop and Frisk Cases: A Look Inside the Supreme (n. D. ). FACTS Cleveland, Ohio Detective Martin McFadden is thirty-nine year police veteran.

Out of those thirty-nine years, thirty years was spent working a “shoplifting- sprocket detail” in downtown Cleveland. (Terry v. Ohio – Kansas. Gob – The Official website of the (n. D On, October 31, 1963, the detective observed the suspicion behavior of three unknown men/suspects (Terry, Clinton and Katz) while patrolling his beat. For instance, he noticed two of the men walking back and forth for 10 to 12 minutes (24 times) from the street corner to “Sucker’s” store. (Terry v. Ohio – Kansas. Gob – The Official website of the (n. D. ).

Detective McFadden approached the three men, he requested identification, and he began to question them. The individuals began to “mumble” in response to his questions. McFadden began to perform a surface search of the first suspect (Terry). McFadden felt what he believed to be a handgun in Terry’s coat. He pulled a . 38 caliber pistol from Terry’s coat. (Terry v. Ohio – Kansas. Gob – The Official website of the (n. D. ). McFadden ordered the three men to face the wall, as he began to pat-down the remaining two suspects. He found another revolver in Silicon’s outer clothing.

A search of the third suspect (Katz) did not result in any unauthorized/illegal weapons or drugs. Terry and Clinton were arrested. They were later, indicted, and convicted of violating Ohio’s Carrying A Concealed Weapon Statute. (Terry v. Ohio – Kansas. Gob – The Official website of the (n. D. ). ISSUE Whether the stop-and-frisk search of Terry considered an unlawful search under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution? HOLDING No, during situations law enforcement observes Unusual conduct in which he/ she reasonably suspects an individual may be armed and presently dangerous.

The officer may conduct an outer clothing pat down (frisk) to confirm whether the suspicion is indeed correct. RATIONALE/REASONING The courts considered many factors prior to making a ruling on the issues presented herein. First, a distinction between a search, seizure, and arrest as significant prior to addressing the main issues. A search (Terry Search) is when a police officer reasonably suspects an individual engaged in a criminal act. Thus, a limited and careful search is conducted by touching of the outer clothing of an individual in attempt to find weapons (Terry v.

Ohio – Kansas-Gob – The Official website of the (n. D. ). A seizure occurs whenever a police officer questions/stops an individual and restricts them from walking away within a specified period of time. An arrest is detaining an individual for violating a law. Accordingly, the detective approached the three men based on their unusual conduct. The courts concluded Detective McFadden seized the defendants and conducted a search of all the three suspects, resulting, in finding two small caliber revolvers on their persons. (Terry v. Ohio Kansas. Gob – The Official website of the (n. . ). Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. Terry v. Ohio – Kansas. Gob – The Official website of the (n. D. ). Exclusionary Rule: The defendants assert the search was not lawful; therefore, all evidence obtained must be excluded.

The courts looked towards the exclusionary rule found in constitutional law, which provides in part: “any evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure must be excluded. ” (Exclusionary Rule Wax Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia ELI . (n. D. ) CONCLUSION The Court reached its holding by striking a balance between law enforcement mission to protect society against the privacy interests of individuals. Terry risks, the Court articulated: is a “serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment, and it is not to be undertaken lightly. (Terry v. Ohio legal definition of Terry v. Ohio. (n. D. ). On the other hand, law enforcement must not be prevented from performing its goal of crime prevention. With this in mind, the Court reasoned a police officer must observe unusual conduct (criminal activity) before lawfully stopping, detaining, and questioning an individual. (Terry v. Ohio legal definition of Terry v. Ohio. (n. D. ). Terry searches are not permitted unless the Alice officer is under the belief the suspect is armed and dangerous. The foregoing search must be limited to the suspect’s outer clothing.

Any evidence obtained outside these restrictions would be considered inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. In this instant case, detective McFadden conducted a proper search of the defendants; moreover, the exclusionary rule does not apply to this case. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts. (Terry v. Ohio legal definition of Terry v. Ohio. (n. D Criminal Procedure for Juvenile Offenders (New Yorkshire Criminal Procedure) The following discussion will describe City, of New York juvenile criminal justice system.

Specifically, the process that occurs after a sixteen-year old youth is arrested for engaging in a criminal act. Arrest & Intake: Police are given informal discretion with regard to arresting a juvenile offender, release with a warning, or a referral to services. This is decided during the arrest/intake phase of the incident. (Citizens Crime Commission of New York City Guide To Juvenile Justice… (n. D. ). Prior to making the above- mentioned determinations, law enforcement typically considers the severity f the alleged offense along with the age of the offender.

Once an arrest is decided, the juvenile offender will be next transported to a Juvenile Center for intake pending arraignment. (Citizens Crime Commission of New York City Guide To Juvenile Justice… (n. D. ). An intake interview is conducted by the New York City Department of Probation conducts an intake interview in order to determine the next course of action for the juvenile offender. The goal is to decide whether the case should be dismissed, diversion program, and or referred to the state prosecutor. (Citizens Crime Commission of New York City Guide To Juvenile Justice… (n. D. ).

After gathering all the essential information regarding the case, the probation officer decides whether the case will proceed. A probation officer may request a case to be adjusted after intake with the expressed consent of the complainant. During this phase the probation officer includes all parties to attempt to resolve the case without involving the court system. (Citizens Crime Commission of New York City Guide To Juvenile Justice… (n. D. ). The adjustment process consists of the probation officer working with all parties in attempt to resolve the case without involving the court.

If the case cannot be resolved a recommendation to prosecute the case will be suggested. A Risk Assessment Instrument (ARIA) will be reviewed to “measure the youth’s risk for failure to appear in court and re-offending during the course of the case process. ” (Citizens Crime Commission of New York City Guide To Juvenile Justice… (n. D. ). Initial Court Appearance & Arraignment: The juvenile offender first learns the charges against them. They will either plead guilty or not guilty. The judge decides whether they should be released or detained while the case is still pending. (Citizens Crime Commission of New

York City Guide To Juvenile Justice… (n. D. ). Family Court: The initial court appearance must be held within 72 hours after the complaint is filed and or ten days after the juvenile offender is detained. At the initial court appearance, the court must consider several factors/decisions, for instance, “whether the case should be referred back to the Department of Probation for adjustment or whether detention is necessary. ” (Citizens Crime Commission of New York City Guide To Juvenile Justice… (n. D. ). Criminal Court: Similar to adult cases, the assistant district attorney will present the case and he juvenile offender will enter a plea.