Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Disclaimer: The Supreme Court's formal case law is only listed in the printed version of the US report. The Justia case law is only intended to provide general information and may not reflect current legal development, judgment, or settlement. We do not make any warranties or warranties regarding the accuracy, completeness or validity of the information contained in this website or the information linked to this website. Please check the official source

Justia Annotations is a forum for lawyers to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our website. Justia guarantees or guarantees that the memo is accurate or reflects the current legal status and that comments are not intended and should not be interpreted as legal advice No. Contacting Justia or other lawyers through this website through a Web form, e-mail, or other means does not establish a relationship with the lawyer - customer.

However, Terry v. Since Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968), the Court has acknowledged that not all restrictions on personal privacy or freedom are sufficient to constitute "search" or "seizure". Please meet the criteria of probable degree to that extent. Instead, the court's decision said, "Even if the police officer lacks a possible cause, if there is a reasonable doubt in favoring possible criminal activity, the police will stop the person and temporarily It can be detained in a similar way. " , 490 US 1, 7 (1989). As the court explained:

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968) If the police have reasons to believe that they have committed a crime or suspected to commit a crime, or if there is a reasonable doubt that the suspect is armed and dangerous, 4 You can prevent violating the revision. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 USA 388 (1971) Individuals can sue Federal government officials who infringe his fourth amendment right even if such lawsuits are not permitted by law. The importance of infringing a right means the existence of a remedy against a breach

With regard to exceptions to exemption clauses, that act is Article 1 of amendment, Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1, 20 (1968), the court will develop its privacy expectation test as described above. .1206 - 09, We changed the content of the standard greatly. Nevertheless, the court often insists that "the most fundamental constitutional rule in this field - is a study conducted outside the judicial process without prior approval of the judge or magistrate." Rational: Follow only specific exceptionally defined and clearly defined exceptions. "Three exceptions are said to be" cautiously and carefully drawn ".

11 This view is similar to the position Terry v. Ohio State Supreme Court took in 392 US 1 (1968), and even if the police do not indicate that he is likely, it is the Constitution that stops the investigation It is said that. It leads to search. The court pointed out that searches that terminate the search are not disturbing and should not be tested on the same basis than regular searches. With ID 29-30. "One school administrator now has the freedom to conduct a search at the school rather than the police.Following 79-103 and the text of the above, the school administrator will use the trained dog In broad discretion - clearly, the police will not be allowed to "freely roam the well-trained dog and sensor tools, detect the smell of marijuana and arrest people randomly". "State v. Elkins, 47 Ohio App 2 d 307, 313, 354 NE 2 d 716, 719 (1976)

Use of dogs at public high school Dog use Anthony P. Gilman Indiana University law school