reply to this discussion:

Terry v. Ohio (1969)

1. Facts

Two guys were standing on a corner of a strip that is known for pocket pickers and robberies. Both guys took turns observing a store front over and over. A citizen that\\\ was nearby who was an officer and previously a detective saw these actions and decided to stand and investigate. Once the two men met up with a third person, the officer presented himself. He searched the men and found a pistol on two of them.

1. Issue

The main issue in this case is whether there was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officer did not have concrete proof that the men were a threat but still for his own safety whenever he approached the men, he patted them down.

1. Holding

The court held that the police officer did not violate the men's Fourth Amendment and that it was okay for him to search the men before proceeding to talk to them. One thing that the courts held was that "if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous" (Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1969)).

1. Rationale

The officer has been on the force for a long time so it helped gage his judgement on if he should observe and intervene or not. The courts used State v. Terry (1966) in support of their decision.