There have been many landmark cases in the US that have set precedents over cases and really affected how we look at certain amendments. One such case is Terry vs. Ohio. In this case on October 31, 1963 Detective McFadden saw two men acting suspiciously. John Terry and Richard Chilton were walking past a store staring in it and then meeting up on the corner and talking. The officer observed this over about a dozen times and on one of the trips a third man was seen talking with them. The officer then followed the men and saw them meet up with the third man he saw earlier. Detective McFadden approached the men, told them he was a police officer and quickly started searching them for his own ...view middle of the document...
This case set many precedents in cases and is now known in law enforcement as a “Terry stop†which means a stop and frisk.
In one case where Terry set precedents was the case of Michigan v. Long. In the case they cited the Terry case that an officer can search car compartments constitutionally if the officer has reasonable suspicion. In this case the officers questioned the individual after he drove his car off a road into a shallow creek. They said they noticed a knife in the car so they performed a pat down of the suspect and searched the car for weapons. They noticed a bag of marijuana and found 75 more pounds in the trunk. The officers were protected by the Terry case because they were searching the car initially for weapons and found an exposed bag of marijuana which gave them reasonable suspicion to search the compartments of the car. Another case where the Terry case came into effect was Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. This case was actually considered an extension of the Terry case. The case involved an officer answering a domestic disturbance call and thought he found the subject because everything matched the description. When he approached he asked for identification. The man refused because he stated that he did nothing wrong. The officer told the man that he needed identification because he was conducting an investigation and if he refused he would be taken into custody. The man still refused exclaiming he did nothing wrong and there was no need for his invasion of privacy. In this case the courts made an extension to the...
