case
Instructions
Select a case that interests you personally. Discuss the case thoroughly as if you were presenting this case to a colleague who knows nothing about it.
Once you finish researching the specific case, draft a four-page paper in proper APA Style format, consisting of the following elements:
the facts of the case,
the legal issue,
the legal principle applied in the case,
the holding and reasoning of the majority, and
a summary of any concurrences and dissents.
Your case study must be a minimum of four full pages. You are required to use at least the article as an outside resource.Adhere to APA Style when creating citations and references for this assignment. | About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright 2020 LexisNexis
Date and Time: Sunday, September 13, 2020 1:34:00 AM EDT
Job Number: 125266321
Document (1)
1. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1
Client/Matter: -None-
Search Terms: cases
Search Type: Natural Language
Narrowed by:
Content Type Narrowed by
Cases -None-
http://www.lexisnexis.com/about-us/
http://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/terms/privacy-policy.page
http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/general.aspx
http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&idtype=PID&context=1516831
Caution
As of: September 13, 2020 5:34 AM Z
Terry v. Ohio
Supreme Court of the United States
December 12, 1967, Argued ; June 10, 1968, Decided
No. 67
Reporter
392 U.S. 1 *; 88 S. Ct. 1868 **; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 ***; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345 ****; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383
TERRY v. OHIO
Prior History: [****1] CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Core Terms
arrest, weapons, frisk, seizure, seized, intrusion, armed,
clothing, outer, street, suspicion, encounter, walked,
suspicious, corner, guns, window, exclusionary,
invasions, interrogation, concealed, briefly, forcibly,
revolver, disarm, pocket
Case Summary
Procedural Posture
Petitioner sought review of a judgment from the
Supreme Court of Ohio that affirmed petitioner’s
conviction for carrying a concealed weapon. Petitioner
contended that the weapon seized from his person and
introduced into evidence was obtained through an illegal
search, under U.S. Const. amend. IV, and that the trial
court improperly denied his motion to suppress.
Overview
Petitioner sought review of his conviction for carrying a
concealed weapon, contending that the weapon seized
from him was obtained through an illegal search, under
U.S. Const. amend. IV, and that the trial court
improperly denied his motion to suppress. On certiorari
the court affirmed petitioner’s conviction. The court ruled
that despite the fact that the arresting police officer
lacked probable cause to arrest petitioner at the time he
made the “stop and frisk” warrantless intrusion upon
petitioner that produced the weapon at issue, the search
satisfied the conditions of U.S. Const. amend. IV: the
officer had a reasonable suspicion, based upon his
experience, that petitioner and his companions were
about to commit a daytime robbery, and his belief that
petitioner was presently armed, dangerous, and posed a
threat to him and to others justified both the officer’s
“stop” of petitioner and the “frisk,” or pat-down, of
petitioner’s overcoat. Furthermore, the court ruled that
the search of the outer clothing of petitioner and his
companions was properly limited in time and scope in
order for him to determine the presence of weapons and
to neutralize the danger posed.
Outcome
The court affirmed a judgment that affirmed petitioner’s
conviction for carrying a concealed weapon because the
“stop and frisk” tactics used by the police in the search
of petitioner’s person and the seizure of the weapon
produced from the search were reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment, as the arresting officer reasonably
concluded that petitioner was armed and was about to
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/shepards?id=urn:contentItem:7XW4-F5B1-2NSF-C2YX-00000-00&category=initial&context=
Page 2 of 28
engage in criminal activity.
LexisNexis Headnotes
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > General Overview
HN1[ ] Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure
See U.S. Const. amend. IV.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
HN2[ ] Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection
The inestimable right of personal security provided for
by U.S. Const. amend IV belongs as much to the citizen
on the streets of our cities as to the homeowner
closeted in his study to dispose of his secret affairs.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
HN3[ ] Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully
guarded, by the common law, than the right of every
individual to the possession and control of his own
person, free from all restraint or interference of others,
unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Expectation of Privacy
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > General Overview
HN4[ ] Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places,
and wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable
“expectation of privacy,” he is entitled to be free from
unreasonable governmental intrusion. The specific
content and incidents of this right must be shaped by
the context in which it is asserted. For what the
Constitution forbids is not all searches and seizures, but
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Constitutional Law > The
Judiciary > Jurisdiction > Diversity Jurisdiction
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Exclusionary Rule > General Overview
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Exclusionary Rule
HN5[ ] Jurisdiction, Diversity Jurisdiction
The exclusionary rule has its limitations as a tool of
judicial control. It cannot properly be invoked to exclude
the products of legitimate police investigative techniques
on the ground that much conduct which is closely similar
involves unwarranted intrusions upon constitutional
protections. Moreover, in some contexts the rule is
ineffective as a deterrent.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
HN6[ ] Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection
The Fourth Amendment governs “seizures” of the
person which do not eventuate in a trip to the station
house and prosecution for crime — “arrests” in traditional
terminology. Whenever a police officer accosts an
individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he
has “seized” that person. It 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.
392 U.S. 1, *1; 88 S. Ct. 1868, **1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, ***889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345, ****1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc2
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc3
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc4
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc5
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc6
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
Page 3 of 28
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > General Overview
HN7[ ] Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection
A search which is reasonable at its inception may
violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable
intensity and scope. The scope of the search must be
“strictly tied to and justified by” the circumstances which
rendered its initiation permissible.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Reasonable &
Prudent Standard
HN8[ ] Warrantless Searches, Stop & Frisk
The Fourth Amendment governs all intrusions by agents
of the public upon personal security; the scope of the
particular intrusion, in light of all the exigencies of the
case, is a central element in the analysis of
reasonableness.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > General Overview
HN9[ ] Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection
The central inquiry under the Fourth Amendment is the
reasonableness in all the circumstances of the particular
governmental invasion of a citizen’s personal security.
“Search” and “seizure” are not talismans. The U.S.
Supreme Court rejects the notions that the Fourth
Amendment does not come into play at all as a
limitation upon police conduct if the officers stop short of
something called a “technical arrest” or a “full-blown
search.”
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Exigent Circumstances
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Exclusionary
Rule > Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule > Exigent
Circumstances
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Probable Cause
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Search Warrants > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Search Warrants > Issuance by Neutral &
Detached Magistrate
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General
Overview
HN10[ ] Search & Seizure, Exigent Circumstances
The police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance
judicial approval of searches and seizures through the
warrant procedure, and in most instances failure to
comply with the warrant requirement can only be
excused by exigent circumstances.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > Scope of Protection
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Search
Warrants > Probable Cause > General Overview
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Governmental Action Requirement
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Warrantless Searches > General
Overview
HN11[ ] Search & Seizure, Scope of Protection
In order to assess the reasonableness of a warrantless
search and seizure as a general proposition, it is
392 U.S. 1, *1; 88 S. Ct. 1868, **1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, ***889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345, ****1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc7
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc8
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc9
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc10
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc11
Page 4 of 28
necessary first to focus upon the governmental interest
which allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the
constitutionally protected interests of the private citizen,
for there is no ready test for determining
reasonableness other than by balancing the need to
search or seize against the invasion which the search or
seizure entails. And in justifying the particular intrusion
the police officer must be able to point to specific and
articulable facts which, taken together with rational
inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that
intrusion.
Constitutional Law > … > Fundamental
Rights > Search & Seizure > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Exclusionary
Rule > Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule > Good
Faith
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Search Warrants > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Search Warrants > Issuance by Neutral &
Detached Magistrate
HN12[ ] Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure
The scheme of the Fourth Amendment becomes
meaningful only when it is assured that at some point
the conduct of those charged with enforcing the laws
can be subjected to the more detached, neutral scrutiny
of a judge who must evaluate the reasonableness of a
particular search or seizure in light of the particular
circumstances. And in making that assessment it is
imperative that the facts be judged against an objective
standard: would the facts available to the officer at the
moment of the seizure or the search “warrant a man of
reasonable caution in the belief” that the action taken
was appropriate? Simple good faith on the part of the
arresting officer is not enough.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Absence of
Probable Cause
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
HN13[ ] Exigent Circumstances, Absence of
Probable Cause
When an officer is justified in believing that the
individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating
at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the
officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly
unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take
necessary measures to determine whether the person is
in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of
physical harm.
Criminal Law & Procedure > Criminal
Offenses > Weapons Offenses > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
HN14[ ] Criminal Offenses, Weapons Offenses
Even a limited search of the outer clothing for weapons
constitutes a severe, though brief, intrusion upon
cherished personal security.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Exigent Circumstances > Absence of
Probable Cause
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Exigent Circumstances > General
Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
HN15[ ] Exigent Circumstances, Absence of
Probable Cause
A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause
to arrest must, like any other search, be strictly
circumscribed by the exigencies which justify its
initiation. Thus it must be limited to that which is
necessary for the discovery of weapons which might be
used to harm the officer or others nearby, and may
realistically be characterized as something less than a
“full” search, even though it remains a serious intrusion.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
392 U.S. 1, *1; 88 S. Ct. 1868, **1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, ***889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345, ****1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc12
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc13
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc14
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc15
Page 5 of 28
HN16[ ] Warrantless Searches, Stop & Frisk
There must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a
reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the
police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is
dealing with an armed and dangerous individual,
regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest
the individual for a crime. The officer need not be
absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue
is whether a reasonably prudent man in the
circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his
safety or that of others was in danger. And in
determining whether the officer acted reasonably in
such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to
his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or “hunch,”
but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is
entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Exclusionary
Rule > Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule > General
Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > Search &
Seizure > Fruit of the Poisonous Tree > Rule
Application & Interpretation
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
HN17[ ] Exclusionary Rule, Exceptions to
Exclusionary Rule
The Fourth Amendment proceeds as much by
limitations upon the scope of governmental action as by
imposing preconditions upon its initiation. U.S. Const.
amend IV. The entire deterrent purpose of the rule
excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment rests on the assumption that limitations
upon the fruit to be gathered tend to limit the quest itself.
Thus, evidence may not be introduced if it was
discovered by means of a seizure and search which
were not reasonably related in scope to the justification
for their initiation.
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Warrantless
Searches > Stop & Frisk > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Crimes Against
Persons > Assault & Battery > General Overview
Criminal Law & Procedure > … > Assault &
Battery > Simple Offenses > General Overview
HN18[ ] Warrantless Searches, Stop & Frisk
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 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. Such a
search is a reasonable search under U.S. Const.
amend. IV, and any weapons seized may properly be
introduced in evidence against the person from whom
they were taken.
Lawyers’ Edition Display
Summary
Following the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress, the
prosecution, at defendant’s trial in the Court of Common
Pleas of Cuyahoga County on a charge of carrying a
concealed weapon, introduced in evidence a revolver
seized from defendant by a police officer after the officer
observed the unusual conduct of defendant and two
other men and, concluding that these men contemplated
a daylight robbery, stopped and frisked them, thereby
discovering guns. The Ohio Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County, affirmed. (5
Ohio App 2d 122, 34 Ohio Ops 2d 237, 214 NE2d 114.)
The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed defendant’s
appeal on the ground that no substantial constitutional
question was involved.
On certiorari, the Supreme Court of the United States
affirmed. In an opinion by Warren, Ch. J., expressing
substantially the views of eight members of the court, it
was held that the search was a reasonable search
under the Fourth Amendment, and that the revolver
seized from the defendant was properly introduced in
evidence, where the police officer reasonably concluded
392 U.S. 1, *1; 88 S. Ct. 1868, **1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, ***889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345, ****1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc16
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc17
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LNHNREFclscc18
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRM-VK40-003C-64R8-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3RRM-VK40-003C-64R8-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
Page 6 of 28
in the light of his experience that criminal activity might
be afoot and that the persons with whom he was dealing
might be armed and presently dangerous.
Black, J., without writing a separate opinion, concurred
in the judgment and court’s opinion with the exception of
certain quotations from earlier opinions of the Supreme
Court of the United States.
Harlan, J., also joined the court’s opinion upon the
premise that once the officer was justified to interrupt
defendant’s freedom of movement, the officer’s right to
take suitable measures for his own safety followed
automatically.
White, J., likewise joined the opinion of the court,
reserving judgment, however, on some of the court’s
general remarks about the scope and purpose of the
exclusionary rule which the court has fashioned in the
process of enforcing the Fourth Amendment.
Douglas, J., dissented, expressing the view that the
search and seizure by way of stopping and frisking
defendant was constitutional only if there was probable
cause to believe that a crime had been, or was in the
process of being, or was about to be, committed.
Headnotes
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 6 > Fourth Amendment — persons
protected — > Headnote:
LEdHN[1][ ] [1]
The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable
searches and seizures belongs as much to the citizen
on the streets as to the homeowner closeted in his study
to dispose of his secret affairs.
ARREST 1 > SEARCH AND SEIZURE 3 > restraint of
person — > Headnote:
LEdHN[2][ ] [2]
No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully
guarded, by the common law than the right of every
individual to the possession and control of his own
person, free from all restraint or interference, unless by
clear and unquestionable authority of law.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 5 > Fourth Amendment —
> Headnote:
LEdHN[3][ ] [3]
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 101 > right of privacy —
> Headnote:
LEdHN[4][ ] [4]
Wherever an individual may harbor a reasonable
expectation of privacy, he is, as a matter of
constitutional law, entitled to be free from unreasonable
governmental intrusion; the specific content and
incidents of this right must be shaped by the context in
which it is asserted.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 5 > reasonableness —
> Headnote:
LEdHN[5][ ] [5]
What the Constitution forbids is not all searches and
seizures, but unreasonable searches and seizures.
EVIDENCE 681 > exclusionary rule — > Headnote:
LEdHN[6][ ] [6]
Without the rule excluding evidence seized in violation
of the Fourth Amendment, a principal mode of, and the
only effective deterrent to, police misconduct in the
criminal context, the constitutional guaranty against
unreasonable searches and seizures would be a mere
form of words; the rule also serves another vital
function, namely, the imperative of judicial integrity.
EVIDENCE 681 > fruits of invasion of constitutional rights —
> Headnote:
LEdHN[7][ ] [7]
392 U.S. 1, *1; 88 S. Ct. 1868, **1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, ***889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345, ****1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN1_1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN2_1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN3_1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN4_1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN5_1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN6_1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=statutes-legislation&id=urn:contentItem:8T9R-T3H2-D6RV-H37G-00000-00&context=
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN7_1
Page 7 of 28
Courts which sit under the Federal Constitution cannot
and will not be made party to lawless invasions of the
constitutional rights of citizens by permitting unhindered
governmental use of the fruits of such invasions.
EVIDENCE 681 > exclusionary rule — > Headnote:
LEdHN[8][ ] [8]
Evidentiary rulings provide the context in which the
judicial process of inclusion and exclusion approves
some conduct as comporting with constitutional
guaranties and disapproves other actions by state
agents; a ruling admitting evidence in a criminal trial has
the necessary effect of legitimizing the conduct which
produced the evidence, while an application of the
exclusionary rule withholds the constitutional
imprimatur.
EVIDENCE 681 > exclusionary rule — limitations —
> Headnote:
LEdHN[9][ ] [9]
The rule excluding evidence seized in violation of the
Fourth Amendment has its limitations as a tool of judicial
control, and proper adjudication of cases in which the
exclusionary rule is invoked demands a constant
awareness of these limitations; while some police field
interrogation conduct violates the Fourth Amendment,
the rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the
products of legitimate police investigative techniques on
the ground that much conduct which is closely similar
involves unwarranted intrusions upon constitutional
protections.
EVIDENCE 681 > SHERIFFS, CONSTABLES, AND
POLICE 8 > police conduct — > Headnote:
LEdHN[10][ ] [10]
Even though the rule excluding evidence seized in
violation of the Fourth Amendment should not be
applied rigidly and unthinkingly in futile protest against
police investigatory practices which it can never be used
effectively to control, courts still retain their traditional
responsibility to guard against police conduct which is
overbearing or harassing, or which trenches upon
personal security without the objective evidentiary
justification which the Federal Constitution requires;
where such conduct is identified, it must be condemned
by the judiciary and its fruits must be excluded from
evidence in criminal trials.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 11 > of and from person —
> Headnote:
LEdHN[11][ ] [11]
The police “stop and frisk” practice is not outside the
purview of the Fourth Amendment, which governs
“seizures” of the person not eventuating in “arrests” in
traditional terminology; whenever a police officer
accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk
away, he has “seized” that person, and a careful
exploration of the outer surfaces of a person’s clothing
all over his body in an attempt to find weapons is a
“search,” a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the
person, which is not to be undertaken lightly.
EVIDENCE 681 > SHERIFFS, CONSTABLES, AND
POLICE 9 > investigatory practices — community resentment
— > Headnote:
LEdHN[12A][ ] [12A]LEdHN[12B][ ] [12B]
While abusive practices which play a major role in
creating friction between the police and the community
are not susceptible of control by means of the rule
excluding evidence seized in violation of the Fourth
Amendment, and cannot properly dictate judicial
decisions with respect to the powers of the police in
genuine investigative and preventive situations,
nevertheless, the degree of community resentment
aroused by particular practices is relevant to an
assessment of the quality of the intrusion upon
reasonable expectations of personal security caused by
those practices.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE 5 > standards — reasonableness –
– > Headnote:
LEdHN[13A][ ] [13A]LEdHN[13B][ ] [13B]
392 U.S. 1, *1; 88 S. Ct. 1868, **1868; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889, ***889; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345, ****1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn:contentItem:3S4X-FHX0-003B-S04Y-00000-00&context=&link=LEDHN8_1
https://advance.lexis.com/api/document?collection=cases&id=urn
