Jordan Nugent

Terry v. Ohio
Professor Barnes
5 March 2019

Facts:
On October 31, 1963, Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden witnessed Terry and
Chilton acting suspicious. The two men would take turns walking down Huron Road, pausing to
look into a store, and then turning back to briefly discuss. Halfway through, a third man, Katz,
stopped to talk, and then walked away in the opposite direction. Terry and Chilton continued
their routine for about 10 more minutes before following the path of Katz.
At this point, Officer McFadden followed the three men to Zucker’s store, identified
himself as a police officer, and asked for their names. When they mumbled an answer, Officer
McFadden spun Terry around so they were facing Chilton and Katz, and then proceeded to pat
down the outside of Terry’s clothes. Upon feeling a pistol in Terry’s left breast pocket,
McFadden reached inside to confiscate the gun, but could not remove it. He then ordered the
three men to enter Zucker’s store where he removed Terry’s overcoat and took a .38 caliber
revolver. McFadden order the men to face the wall with their hands up, and patted down Chilton
and Katz. Another revolver was removed from Chilton, but no weapons were found on Katz. He
then asked the proprietor of the store to call the police.
This case presents the serious question regarding the power a policeman has to
confront citizens on the street, and what boundary should be established as to not violate the
Fourth Amendment.
In this study, Terry is appealing to the Supreme Court of Ohio following the denial of a
pretrial motion to suppress evidence he claims was obtain in a way that violated his Fourth
Amendment right.

Plaintiff:
In this case, the Plaintiff is the state of Ohio which is represented through Officer Martin
McFadden. McFadden begins by explains the reasoning behind his suspicion of Terry, Chilton,
and Katz. He states why he was prompted to follow the men, and the exact steps he took to
confiscate the evidence used against Terry. Before McFadden followed the three men, he
affirmed he had been a policeman for 39 years, a detective for 35 years, and had been
assigned to patrol downtown Cleveland for 30 years. McFadden explained “he had developed
routine habits of observation,” meaning he had years of observing cues and suspicious behavior
that everyday people may not pick up on.
McFadden explains in detail the interactions and actions of Terry, Chilton, and Katz, and
how he watched for more than 12 minutes before taking action. He claimed it was his duty as an
officer to investigate further out of fear for a concealed weapon.
During the interaction between McFadden and the men, McFadden introduced himself
and asked for names - a non aggressive approach to a potentially dangerous situation. After the
men replied in mumbles, McFadden patted down the men, only over their clothes until he felt a
weapon. Then he felt under their garments to take the weapons.
Defendant:
The defendant, Terry, claims the evidence presented in court was unlawfully obtain, and
petitioned to have it suppressed. Officer McFadden may have been suspicious, but he had no
reason to search the men. This unreasonable search led to the finding of the .38 caliber
revolver, which is the only evidence used to charge him with carrying a concealed weapon.
At the point where Officer McFadden approached the men and asked for their names, he
had no knowledge of the three, and only based his actions off of what he had observed. He also
had not received any information regarded the men by another source. In conclusion, Officer
McFadden had no probable cause to search or arrest the men.

Decision:
After the denial of Terry’s petition for suppression, the court adjudged them guilty. The
Supreme Court of Ohio also dismissed their appeal stated that there was no “substantial
constitutional question involved.” The court also affirmed the admissions of the revolvers and
affirmed the conviction.
The court also stated that it is unreasonable to deny an officer to take necessary
precautions when there is a potential danger. There is a need for law enforcement to protect
themselves and others. The court distinguished between a “stop” and “frisk”, which is what
Officer McFadden performed, versus and more serious “arrest” and “search”. The former is
reasonable under suspicion, and the latter should only be done when crime is beyond
reasonable doubt.

Dissenting:
Mr. Justice Douglas states that any seizure of a person is only reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment when a police officer has a probable cause. There needs to be more than
just an officer’s suspicion, and facts must be present within the officer’s knowledge.
Giving an officer greater power (to search from suspicion and not facts), is a step toward
totalitarianism. This choice must be one of the people. The person and the effects are beyond
the reach of government agencies until there is a probably cause. This debate should be
discussed with the people of the country and voted upon.