About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

74 Miss. L.J. 423 (2004-2005)
Terry v. Ohio at Thirty-Five: A Revisionist View

handle is hein.journals/mislj74 and id is 475 raw text is: TERRY v. OHIO AT THIRTY-FIVE: A REVISIONIST VIEW Lewis R. Katz* In its landmark decision, Terry v. Ohio,' thirty-five years ago, the United States Supreme Court upheld forcible detentions (stops) and searches (frisk) on less than the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause. The decision came just seven years after Mapp v. Ohio2 where the Supreme Court extended the protection of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to the states and demanded that police obey the law while enforcing it.3 Terry represented a sudden change in direction away from the Warren Court's focus of protecting individual rights from police abuse of power, evidenced in Mapp and Miranda,4 to empowering police and expanding police power on the street in Terry.' At first glance, the Terry doctrine seems to provide police with reasonable authority to investigate suspicious activity and prevent crimes, rather than limiting police only to chasing . John C. Hutchins Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University. An earlier draft of this article was presented at the Annual Fourth Amendment Symposium, The Tools to Interpret the Fourth Amendment, of the National Center for Justice and the Rule of Law, of the University of Mississippi School of Law, on April 2, 2004. I want to thank William C. Carter and John Martin for their helpful comments on an earlier draft and my research assistants Claire Chau, Ryan Kerian and Shaylor Steele for their research and editorial assistance. 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Mapp, 367 U.S. at 655 (concluding that because the Fourth Amendment's right to privacy is enforceable against the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state court). ' Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467 (1966) (holding that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination includes proper procedural safeguards against police abuse of the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crimes). ' See generally Scott E. Sundby, An Ode to Probable Cause: A Brief Response to Professors Amar and Slobogin, 72 ST. JOHN'S L. REV. 1133, 1136-37 (1998) (discussing balancing of individual liberties with police power). 423

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most