Posted: August 21st, 2022

Case: Terry v. Ohio

Stop and Frisk
Case Brief Instructions

Case: Terry v. Ohio
Component of the Criminal Justice System: Law enforcement
Topic: Stop and Frisk

1. Ethical System Application:
a. Assignment help – Discuss whether the majority opinion reflects the application of a deontological or teleological/consequentialist ethical system and the rationale behind your conclusion.
b. If you had to rule on the case, what ethical system would you use to guide your legal analysis (teleological/consequentialist or deontological) and why? What are the costs and benefits of relying on the chosen ethical system to guide your legal reasoning? The justices’ role is to interpret the law in a way that ensures actions are constitutional. How well do you believe your chosen ethical system allows you to adhere to constitutional requirements? Support your arguments.

Stop and Frisk
John W. Terry, the petitioner, was approached, stopped, and searched by officer McFadden, a Cleveland detective. The officer stopped and searched Terry and the other two after suspecting the three were casing a store for a potential robbery. Based on the Fourth Amendment, a police officer had the mandate to stop and search a suspect without probable cause, as long as the officer has reasonable believes that the individual may armed and dangerous and is about or has committed a crime. The Issue in the case was to determine whether the search for weapons conducted by officer McFadden without probable cause for arrest is an unreasonable search with consideration of the United States Fourth Amendment (Casebriefs, 2020). The majority held that the police officer quick seizer and search for weapons without probable cause for arrest, but the officer reasonably believes the person could be armed then considered a reasonable search. The majority opinion tends to reflect the deontological ethical system since the court considers the ideals underlying the decision of seizer and search rather than the outcome of the decision, that is, if the person is found with a weapon or not.
The most reliable ethical system for ruling the case is the deontological ethics theories. The deontological ethics are non-consequentialist, which emphasis the principals, reasoning, ideals, and motivation underlying decisions or actions without concerns of the consequences or outcomes. Using deontological ethics in deciding the case would base on two types of non-consequentialist theories as a legal analysis guide (SOAS, n.d). The first is the ethic of duties, which holds that all humans have some responsibilities to other humans. The concept of duty provides the officer with the reason to stop and search Terry as a way of fulfilling the responsibility that he has of protecting other humans from harm. Another type of deontological ethics used in the legal analysis of the case is the ethics of rights and justice. The concept of right is considered a justifiable claim against another individual’s behavior. Therefore, it becomes the duty of the officer to uphold the rights of Terry of unreasonable seizure and search. The benefit of applying the concept of duty and right incorporated in deontological ethics is that it offers a more profound legal analysis of the case on both perspectives of unreasonable and reasonable seizure and search.
Deontological ethics develop a basis on which the legal perspectives are considered when explaining the officers’ action of seizure and search for a weapon without probable cause as reasonable. The Fourteenth Amendment protects individuals against unreasonable seizures and searches. However, the deontological ethics concept of duty offers the officer the right based on the Fourth Amendment to stop and search a suspect without probable cause of arrest (Casebriefs, 2020).. The stop and frisk procedures should also be followed by the officer as the right of the suspected individual. The deontological concept of ethics of rights is to ensure the officer’s duty to the suspect includes following the required procedures of stop and frisk under the Fourth Amendment. The officer is considered to have followed the stop and frisk procedures and retrieved a weapon from the suspect. The search conducted by the officer is reasonable as the officer in the attempt to investigate the suspect he had reasons to believe that the safety of the public and his were endangered acting under the duty concept of deontological ethics to prevent the probable danger.

References
Casebriefs. (2020). Terry v. Ohio. Retrieved from https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/the-fourth-amendment-arrest-and-search-and-seizure/terry-v-ohio-4/
SOAS. (n.d). Unit One: Introduction to Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.soas.ac.uk/cedep-demos/000_P563_EED_K3736-Demo/module/pdfs/p563_unit_01.pdf

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Case: Terry v. Ohio