We have our first question sent in by a reader. If you want to send in your questions, do it here, you can do it anonymously.
“Mr Greggory” asks:
Question: How come Terry V. Ohio comes up a lot during 1st amendment audits, and What does Terry v. Ohio say about 1st Amendment Audits?
Dear Mr. Greggory:
Terry v. Ohio is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the legal concept of “stop and frisk” in law enforcement. Essentially, it allows police officers to stop and pat down someone if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. While it doesn’t say anything specifically about 1st amendment audits per see, it is a very relevant case, let me explain.
Terry v. Ohio comes up a lot during First Amendment audits because auditors often believe that law enforcement officers use the case as an excuse to harass or detain them during their audits. Auditors argue that the police have no legal right to interfere with their recording activities as long as they are in a public space and not interfering with police activities.
Furthermore, auditors argue that Terry v. Ohio only applies to criminal investigations, not to First Amendment audits. They maintain that the police have no right to stop or detain them unless they have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
In other words, auditors see Terry v. Ohio as an example of law enforcement overstepping their bounds and using legal loopholes to violate the constitutional rights of citizens. By invoking Terry v. Ohio during First Amendment audits, auditors are trying to educate others about the limits of police power and the importance of protecting our constitutional rights, particularly those related to the First and Fourth Amendments.
We hope that answers your question, and if you want to learn more about Terry v. Ohio, here’s a great set of videos covering various perspectives on the matter.
Videos about Terry V. Ohio
Here are a few videos which discuss a lot of the nuances of Terry v. Ohio to further expand your understanding:
Terry v. Ohio Case Brief Summary:
What is a Terry Stop – Fourth Amendment – Terry Stop Explained:
What is a Terry Stop summary: This video is about Terry stops, which are on-the-street investigations permitted by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio.
The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable and supported by probable cause or a warrant.
In contrast, during a Terry stop, a police officer may detain and frisk an individual if the officer has specific and articulable facts that lead to a reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior.
The officer may only frisk for weapons and must limit the intrusion to what is necessary to find guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments. The video also discusses the legal standards for determining when a seizure has occurred, including the reasonable perception test and the use of physical force or a show of authority.
The video concludes by mentioning a court case in which a stop-and-frisk policy in New York was found to be unconstitutional for disproportionately targeting black and Hispanic individuals. This case is Floyd v. City of New York, which was decided by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2013. The court ruled that the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was appealed by the city, but it was later settled in 2014 with a court-approved reform agreement.
Flloyd v. City of New York
The case of Floyd v. City of New York is mostly concluded, but there are still some ongoing issues related to implementing the court-approved reform agreement. The Center for Constitutional Rights has a great up-to-date timeline of the case here.
In 2013, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the New York City Police Department’s stop-and-frisk policy violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling was appealed by the city but later settled in 2014 with a court-approved reform agreement.
Since then, the NYPD has attempted to implement several changes to its stop-and-frisk policies, including increased training and oversight of police officers, improved data collection and reporting, and the creation of an independent monitor to oversee the reforms. However, there have been ongoing issues with implementing the reforms, and the monitor has reported that some officers have continued to engage in unconstitutional practices.
In 2020, a federal judge approved a plan to further reform the NYPD’s stop-and-frisk practices, which includes additional training for officers and increased civilian oversight. While the case itself is mostly concluded, implementing the reforms is still ongoing.
Terry v. Ohio basics. In depth discussion about Terry v. Ohio
Terry Basics is the video above; here’s the summary of the video:
The video discusses the legal framework that applies to stop and frisk procedures, which is the front gate of Criminal Procedure. The video uses Terry v. Ohio, a famous case from 1968, as the basis for this discussion.
In the case, Officer McFadden suspected three individuals of casing a store for robbery, and subsequently conducted a frisk and found loaded weapons. The Supreme Court ultimately established an intermediate category of reasonable suspicion between no regulation and probable cause, which justified Officer McFadden’s frisk.
The video also discusses the application of this decision, including the question of categorical frisks, the use of reasonable suspicion in determining whether a person is armed and dangerous, and the issue of racial disparities in stop-and-frisk procedures.
The video concludes by highlighting the progression of legal sources, from the Fourth Amendment to equal protection challenges to data collection, and previews another hot topic of discussion in relation to Terry v. Ohio, the scope of a search.
And one last video, this one is by Tactical Attorney on Youtube.
Terry v. Ohio | Case Law for Cops
Summary: The video discusses the landmark decision in Terry v. Ohio, which allows police officers to detain someone temporarily to investigate if there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot and to frisk for weapons if they reasonably suspect that the person is presently armed and dangerous.
The video explains the historical context of the case and how it added a third type of police-citizen encounter. The speaker emphasizes the importance of understanding the basics of the case and the requirement to articulate facts to justify a terry frisk.
WHY Terry v Ohio has to GO! Terry allows No Knock Raids, DUI CheckPoints & Shooting U as U run away
Summary: Delete Laws, the speaker in the video argues that the Supreme Court ruling in Terry v Ohio has eroded Americans’ constitutional rights, including the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. Most 1st amendment auditors and journalists would agree.
They claim that the ruling prioritizes officer safety over citizens’ rights and allows for no-knock raids, DUI checkpoints, and police shootings of individuals running away.
The speaker advocates for the overturning of Terry v Ohio to restore civil liberties and prevent the abuse of power by law enforcement.
Do you have a burning question that you’ve been wanting to ask? Or perhaps you have insider information about a breaking news story? We want to hear from you!
Drop your question, tip or comment here
