Terry V. Ohio Case Study

Terry v. Ohio was not much of a controversial case to many but I believe that John Terry had been wrongly accused and his right were protected by the 4th amendment that mentions unreasonable search and seizure. In 1968 detective Mcfadden had been observing 3 men that he believed were involved in robbing a bank. He proceeded to stop the men and pat them down (already violating the men's rights protected in the 4th amendment). Terry was one of the two men that was found with a concealed carry. The justices voted on the case 8-1 in the favor of the state of Ohio. I believe that Terry's rights should have been protected by by the 4th amendment.When detective mcfadden was suspicious of the 3 men he should have gotten a search warrant and then proceeded

On the other hand the 8 justices who were lead by chief justice warren believed that detective mcfadden had reason to believe that the the 3 men could have been involved in the bank robbery. Whether he had reason to believe or not, detective mcfadden still proceeded to search the men without a warrant and completely disregarded their rights. The 8 justices that ruled in favor of Ohio said that the detective acted on more of a hunch or that he was in a bind. In my eyes this is not an excuse to disregard the 4th amendment. If detective mcfadden would have gotten a search warrant and then search the man it would not have been an argument at all because he a legal document stating that he had the right to search the men. Detective mcfadden had no legal reason to believe that the men had anything to do with the bank robbery besides the fact that they man have looked out of place. Detective mcfadden had violated the 4th amendment from my perspective and should have been held responsible for

I believe this case should have at least been sent back by an appeal court and tried again. The state of ohio should have lost the case because it was unreasonable to search a man that was walking around a street corner and immediately pat him down and use illegal evidence in the case. Chief justice warren should have seen the fact that detective mcfadden knew he was going to be on that stake out and he should have recognized that he needed to go get a search warrant just in case he needed to search the men. Detective mcfadden was out of line in my eyes by searching the men without a warrant from a judge. If he would have gotten a warrant i would be completely in agreement with him and the 8 justices that ruled in favor of detective mcfadden, knowing that he in fact did not have any legal reasoning to search the men makes it hard for me to agree with the justices that ruled in his favor. I believe this case should have been taken into consideration in the fact that detective mcfadden was planning on going on the stake out well before he actually did, this giving him time to get a search warrant. The excuse that detective mcfadden was in a hunch was completely ridiculous because he was definitely not in a hunch he had plenty of time to obtained a search warrant from a judge and make sure that the search did not violate the men's 4th