Terry vs. Ohio
Review of the terry vs. ohio case
Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and was sentenced to one to three years. The gun and ammunition confiscated by the police offer was used as evidence in the trial. The defense had filed a pre-trial motion to have the evidence suppressed. Any evidence found as the result of an illegal search, in this case the gun, would not be admissible. However, first the search needed to be deemed illegal. The motion was denied, as the judge felt that on the basis of the officer’s experience, he had cause to conduct an interrogation, therefore not violating Terry’s fourth amendment rights. Upon the outcome of the trial, the defense appealed to the Supreme Court.
The main question the Supreme Court had was whether Terry’s right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. First, the Court decided that any time an officer restrains a person’s ability to walk away, he is seized. The Court also said that a patting of outer clothing is indeed a search. Therefore, the judgment here is as to whether or not the actions were considered reasonable. They went on to state that when practical, police must have probable cause, and a warrant to perform a search. However, during on-the-spot observations during a beat, it is not practical for an officer to obtain a warrant. Yet, good faith alone cannot be enough to determine a situation unpractical, and to override these regulations. The Court believed that the actions the officer witnessed were enough to allow the officer to reasonably suspect the men could have been armed. The search was carefully restricted to the outer clothing where a weapon may have been located. On the one man where no weapon was found, the officer discontinued his search. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction to Terry.
The outcome of this case causes repercussions that are not obvious to some. A police officer now has the right to detain and search any individual, without a warrant, or even probable cause, as long as he or she can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed. Also, anything the officer feels during that pat down may then be used as probable cause, allowing the officer to complete a full search. Since Terry v Ohio, other cases have come before the Supreme Court that have extended the power of the “stop and frisk”, extending that power to “frisk” cars, for example. Whenever the judiciary “creates” law, it can and will cause controversy, and this is no exception.
---
In the OP case, he already stated to dispatch that he was armed, and they directed him to disarm before the police came. Since the police know he was armed, they may verify he is unarmed as part of the encounter. I'm not a lawyer OR cop, but that is my understanding of it.
