Terry Vs Frisk

675 Words3 Pages
Terry v. Ohio or “Stop and Frisk” or “Terry Stop” or “Pat Down”, how about we call it the “McFadden”. There are tens of thousands of people that do not really care what we call it. Maybe, we name it after one of them? However, the Supreme Court’s monumental case law, “Terry v. Ohio”, has saved tens of thousands of lives. Furthermore, this court ruling has aided the law enforcement with their first priority, which is “protect”, moreover, this ruling has aided with the second priority, which is “serve”. In short, “Terry v. Ohio” allows a law enforcement officer to conduct a “Frisk” or “Pat Down” of the suspect/s outer clothing for weapons, if that law enforcement officer believes that the suspect/s could be armed with a weapon. However, the…show more content…
Although, the decision tested the true meaning of the 4th amendment, it also provided clarity as well as security for the men and women who serve in law enforcement. The ruling allowed law enforcement to legally “Frisk” a subject, thereby providing law enforcement officers the opportunity to protect themselves. Furthermore, it is through these reasonable stops and pat downs that thousands of arrests are made for illegal activity. For example, the New York Police Department through the increase in police enforcement, along with what is referred to as “Stop and Frisk”, saw a 80% reduction in the homicide rate, therefore protecting and saving thousands of lives through this court…show more content…
Furthermore, law enforcement would use “The end justifies the means” to accomplish these encounters. For example, the law enforcement officer would stop a citizen to pat him down with the hopes to find a gun or narcotics, additionally there was no cause for the stop, or the cause was made up. I agree, it is imperative that we constantly ensure that our law enforcement is working within our Bill of Rights the 4th amendment. However, I find it interesting that the defense’s argument, is an argument of the intent of the 4th amendment, rather than the spirit of the amendment. For example, the young women who went to a grocery store with her young child, only to be kidnapped, raped and both her and her child murdered. Only if the law enforcement officer would have frisked the suspect, in the parking lot earlier and found the gun that he had in his pocket, this convicted felon would not have been able to commit this horrendous crime. Today, there are many that question the idea of “Stop and Frisk”, mainly for political reasons. The 4th amendment is clear, designed to protect from undue harm, not to protect violent felons who prey on the
Open Document