Brian Buckley

Business Law 3-4-18

Terry v. Ohio

Facts:

Officer Martin McFadden, a 39-year veteran police officer and detective, was patrolling the
streets of Cleveland, Ohio on October 31, 1963. At approximately 2:30 in the afternoon, McFadden’s
attention was drawn to two individuals named John W. Terry, and Richard D. Chilton. McFadden saw
Terry and Chilton standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. McFadden observed Terry
and Chilton taking turns walking past and looking inside a window of Zucker’s store. The men would
pause for a moment, look in the store window, walk on a short distance, turn around and walk back
toward the corner, pausing again to look into the same store window. As each man returned to the
corner, he would confer with the other. Terry and Chilton repeated this behavior approximately a dozen
times. At one point, Terry and Chilton were joined by a third man on the corner, Katz, who engaged them
in a brief conversation, and then walked away. McFadden followed Terry and Chilton and found them in
front of Zucker’s store with Katz.
After introducing himself as a police officer and asking for their names, McFadden frisked the
three men. McFadden felt a gun inside of Terry’s coat and ordered the men to go into Zucker’s store.
Once inside, McFadden removed Terry’s coat, and found a .38 caliber revolver. He also found a revolver
in Chilton’s coat. No weapons were found on Katz. All three men were taken to the police station. Terry
and Chilton were charged with and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. After an appeals court
rejection, Terry and Chilton appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. When the Ohio Supreme Court
dismissed the appeal, Terry and Chilton asked the U.S Supreme Court to review the case. Prior to the U.S
Supreme Court hearing the case, Chilton died, leaving the court to only consider Terry’s case.

Defendant (Petitioner):
When Terry and Chilton originally appealed their convictions, they claimed that McFadden
conducted the stop and frisk without probable cause to believe that they had committed a crime. They
argued that there was nothing illegal about walking around the streets of Cleveland. Without probable
cause, Terry and Chilton thought that the search was illegal in that it violated their Fourth Amendment
right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Prosecution:
Based on Terry and Chilton’s claim, the question for the prosecution became whether or not a
police officer can detain an individual on the street, without probable cause, and conduct a limited
search for weapons.
Based on his experience, when observing the behavior of these three men outside of Zucker’s
store, McFadden believed that they were getting ready to rob the store and suspected that they were
armed and dangerous. When confronting them and asking for their names, they only mumbled in
response. This furthered McFadden’s suspicion. At this point, McFadden grabbed Terry, frisked him, and
felt a gun inside of Terry’s coat. Due to finding the gun in Terry’s coat, he additionally searched Chilton
and Katz for weapons.

Decision:
With an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Terry’s conviction. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the court. The court concluded that the gun seized from Terry was properly
admitted as evidence against him. The court believed that Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to
believe that the subjects that he confronted were armed and dangerous. The court supported the idea
that it was necessary for McFadden to protect himself and others and to take steps to discover the truth
behind his suspicions. The court stated that McFadden identified himself as a police officer and when
nothing in the initial stages of the encounter dispelled his reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he
had the right to conduct a limited search of the men’s clothing in an attempt to discover weapons which
could be used to hurt him. Such a search was found reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and any
weapon seized could be used as evidence against the person from whom it was taken.

Dissenting Decision:
Justice Douglas dissented. He argued that permitting a police officer to conduct a search and
seizure on the basis of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause provides a police officer with
greater authority than a judge and is therefore improper. Douglas believed that the decision to give the
police greater power should be the choice of the people through a constitutional amendment