Legal Case Briefs x 3 ( Terry v. Ohio, Katz v. United States, Essay

Legal Case Briefs x 3 ( Terry v. Ohio, Katz v. United States, Tennessee v Garner) - Essay Example The three men were incoherent in their response. That prompted the detective to accost Terry, turn him around and discovered a pistol which he was not able to seize at the moment. He then made the three men to enter the store hands raised, and then frisked Chilton and Kartz. The detective recovered a .38 calibre revolver from the pocket of Chilton’s overcoat on the outside. He did not search the outer clothing of Kartz because he did not suspect him to be armed when he lightly frisked him. The detective as a result of discovery of the weapons arrested the three and charged Terry and Chilton with carrying concealed weapons under Ohio laws and rules. Procedural history Trial court- passed verdict of guilty and convicted. Court of appeal – affirmed conviction. Supreme court- upheld affirmation of appellate court. Issue Admissibility of evidence obtained from suspects without warrants under the fourth amendment if the hunt was restrained /limited and reasonable grounds to s uspect danger depending on the prevailing circumstances before actual proof is obtained. Holding It was proper to stop and frisk the suspects if the police had reasonable grounds of suspicion and it was not contrary to the fourth amendment of unreasonable searches and seizures and that the rule was applicable both privately and in public places. Reasoning Brinegar v. United States 338 U.S. 160 (1949) In as much as probable cause standards are meant to guard citizens against unlawful interference by law enforcement officers, they are also meant to aid law enforcement. A balance has to be struck between allowing the officers too much discretion and what is reasonably practicable under the prevailing circumstances. Application Even though the law provides protection for individuals and guards privacy under the fourth amendment, it must be understood that circumstances arise where it is reasonably practicable to allow personal intrusion for effective law enforcement. The standards of pr obable cause must be regarded in determination of whether arrests without warrants are constitutional or not. Conclusion Activities by law enforcement officers that may seem to be a infringement of the Fourth Amendment in relation to searches and seizures depends on the prevailing circumstances under which the events occur and the reasonableness of actions taken by the law enforcement officers. In order to enhance community protection, law enforcement officers must be allowed certain powers but only which are necessary and not excessive. 2. CASE TITLE: Tennessee v Garner CITATION: 471 U.S.1 (1985) Facts Two Memphis police officers, Wright and Hymon responded to a call October 3, 1974 at a quarter to 11 pm. On arrival at the scene, a woman gestured at the next house and explained to them that she had heard the sound of breaking glass and that it was probably a house break in the neighbour’s house. Hymon positioned himself behind the house as Wright confirmed their presence at the scene to the dispatch scene by radio call. Hyman first heard the sound of a slamming door and saw the suspect fleeing across the backyard. The suspect made a stop at a 6-feet- tall chain link fence. Hyman by the aid of a flashlight could see the suspect and reasonably concluded that he was unarmed, about 17/18 years old and about 5’5’’ or 5’7’’ tall. Hyman called on him to stop but he proceeded to scale the fence.