Justice Brennan's Case: The Terry Vs. Ohio Case

After reviewing Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, I cannot agree with his argument that a conducting a protective sweep surpasses the purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision. Justice Brennan agreed that a protective sweep was not a full-blown search, but it was much more intrusive than a limited pat down for weapons or the frisk of an automobile (Sifferlen, 1991). Also, Justice Brennan also stated he believed officers’ should possess probable cause to initiate a protective sweep of a home (Sifferlen, 1991). The Terry v. Ohio decision permits law enforcement officers to perform a pat down of the outer clothing, when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject he or she is dealing with, is armed and dangerous (Hall, 2015). The main purpose of Terry v. Ohio decision is to locate weapons that may be used to hurt the

(Sifferlen, 1991) The landmark cases pertaining to protective sweeps are Chimel v. California and Buie v. Maryland, which establish limitations when performing protective sweeps (Sifferlen, 1991). In Chimel v. California the police executed an in-home arrest warrant, and during their search incident to arrest, they had Chimel’s wife open up dresser drawers revealing evidence of the burglary without a search warrant (Hall, 2015). This type of search was exceeded the intent of protecting police from harm and therefore was proclaimed unconstitutional (Hall, 2015). Additionally, in Maryland v. Buie an officer seized a red running suit utilized in an armed robbery, however the officer initiated a protective sweep of the home because there were still outstanding offenders from the robbery (Sifferlen, 1991). Maryland v. Buie balances officer safety versus the intrusiveness of the search under the Fourth Amendment by limiting police to scope of a protective sweep to places large enough for a person to hide (Sifferlen, 1991). Additionally, police are only permitted in those areas long enough to determine there is not a threat