Why Stop-and-Frisk is Legal | Terry v. Ohio
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 лип 2020
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy today! amzn.to/45Wzhur
In episode 55 of Supreme Court Briefs, an undercover detective stops and frisks three men who were acting "suspiciously" outside of a jewelry store. Was that an invasion of their Fourth Amendment rights? #supremecourtbriefs #4thamendment #stopandfrisk
Want a specific SCOTUS case covered? Your idea gets picked when you donate on Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: sfsf.shop/support-mrbeat/
Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.net/
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat's Discord server: / discord
Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Thanks to the AP Archive for additional footage.
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67
Other sources used:
dcist.com/story/20/06/08/dc-b...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v...
www.acluohio.org/archives/cas...
www.crimemuseum.org/crime-lib...
supreme.justia.com/cases/fede...
olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/k...
Images www.freshwatercleveland.com/f...
engagedscholarship.csuohio.ed...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-an...
Creative commons credits:
Xvex7
longislandwins
Cleveland, Ohio
October 31, 1963
That’s right, Halloween
Martin McFadden, a Cleveland detective with 39 years of experience, gets suspicious when he sees two men pacing back and forth in front of a jewelry store. The two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, would go back and forth, according to various reports, between 12 and 24 times. They took turns starting a block or two away, and then would routinely walk up to the jewelry store window to peek in, and return back to chat about it. Soon, a third man, named Carl Katz, approached Terry and Chilton and talked with them and then left.
McFadden had seen enough. After the three men rejoined in front of Zucker’s, a clothing store, McFadden decided to approach them. McFadden was in street clothes, but identified himself as a police officer and asked them for their names. After the men “mumbled something” in response, McFadden frisked them. Frisk, by the way, means patting someone down to search for hidden weapons or illegal stuff.
Well after McFadden frisked the men, he found a .38-caliber automatic pistol in Terry’s overcoat pocket and a .38-caliber revolver in Chilton’s pocket. Later McFadden would argue he only did a pat-down before reaching into their pockets for the guns.
At the trial, Terry and Chilton’s lawyer argued the evidence of the guns couldn’t be used in court since McFadden’s frisk of them went against the Fourth Amendment. It was an illegal search and seizure. You see, there was this law called the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule said you couldn’t use evidence if the police got it illegally.
The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court disagreed, finding Terry and Chilton guilty. They ruled that, due to both the suspicious nature of their behavior and McFadden’s concern for his own safety, the “stop-and-frisk,” as it’s now commonly known, was reasonable. Terry appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which agreed with the lower court. So he appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court of Ohio, but it dismissed the appeal saying that it involved “no constitutional question.”
By the time Terry had tried to appeal his case to the United States Supreme Court, it was 1967, a time when more and more Americans were losing their trust in the police. Especially African Americans. Oh, by the way, here is what Terry looked like. Here is what Chilton looked like. Here is what Katz looked like.
The Supreme Court did hear arguments on December 12, 1967. The big question: was the stop and frisk of Terry and the other men a violation of the Fourth Amendment?
The Court said no. On June 10, 1968, it announced it had sided with Ohio. It was 8-1. They said that the police could stop-and-frisk suspects as long as there was a “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect was actually about to commit a crime. So the search and seizure was reasonable in Terry and the others’ case since it did seem like they were gonna rob that jewelry store. After all, McFadden had 39 years of police experience, so he would know better than about anyone what an armed robbery was about to look like.
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I've noticed that Ohio has a lot of Supreme Court Briefs Cases that are important and infamous
Mapp v. Ohio, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Euclid v. Ambler to name a few. :)
I’ve noticed a lot of New York law being important. Cardozo being one of the most famous judges despite spending most of his career in New York courts.
@@iammrbeat And a VERY VERY important case that is ignored in almost every Criminal Court case: Beck v. Ohio. Law schools don't even talk about it.
I would imagine most of the legal stuff goes down in the most populated states with high racial diversity and immigrant populations.
Can't even contravene the constitution in Ohio smh
The problem isn't in court's decision,but in the fact that term "reasonable suspicion" could be used for anything and PDs wouldn't be accountable if they did it wrong.
Exactly. I think they got it right with this decision, but failed to recognize the implications and unintended consequences.
@@iammrbeat Though, as the court has just said, implications aren't always it's business, if the law or constitution needs amending that's up to Congress and the States.
Totally agree and my biggest issue with stop and search. In the UK, I was stopped for suspected drug possession (at the time, dressed with long hair and a bandana - in other words, like a hippy) on the basis of "they could smell weed off me" and you obviously cannot disprove scent.
To make matters worse, I was with my girlfriend who was not searched, nor did I want to draw attention to her because I didn't want to see her being treated the same way. It was a completely discriminatory practice. If they thought I had drugs, surely anyone by association would also be suspicious and you'd also search them?
Worst of all, it further causes that disconnect between police and communities - and that's coming from a non-threatening working class white guy. Must be a lot worse for minorities.
@@ML-ir5vo the police saying they smell wees is what they use to search. 2 times i got pulled over and my car search "because they smell weed. Nothing was found and bsb i was let go. If nothing is found they let u go, if u got drugs then it will look like a good search
Matt Grele I mean does it smell like weed? Lol
6:04 As we all know, the six political sides are Left, Right, Center, Russia, Europe, and Canada
You must have glossed over how I also said "perspectives."
You forgot the seventh and eighth sides: Mexico and "CHUYNA"
@@iammrbeat ok fine six political _perspectives_
YES. Supreme court briefs are my favorite.
Glad you dig the series! :D
I love supreme Court briefs.
It's everyone's favourite
If they are… I would find a new person to listen to. This gentleman got this entire case wrong from beginning to end and he even made things up that aren’t true
@@DeleteLawz1984Evidence?
The Terry decision was based on the officer seeing Terry engaging in suspicious behavior.
Stopping just anyone walking down the street is not what was intended at all. In fact, stopping people for no reason is a violation of the 4th amendment.
It depends on what you mean by “stopping anyone walking down the street”. The police can approach anyone else in public just as other citizens may approach others to ask them questions or to give them information. The issue is whether the individual is free to go or not. In Terry v. Ohio, Terry and the two others weren’t detained until Officer McFadden physically seized them and searched their outer clothing.
@@ipsurvivor
An officer in uniform is not like a regular citizen. His very presence creates an atmosphere of threat and intimidation because he has the legal power to arrest people. And cops have even killed innocent people.
Officers should only stop someone when they have evidence the person was part of a crime. Stopping anyone for any other reason is a stressful intrusion. What's more, because officers are under orders to make arrests, they look for any indication of criminal activity and start to fish with questions. They do that even when they have no reason to think the individual they're talking to did anything illegal. They frequently make false arrests, but far more often than that, they take up peoples' precious time and bring them stress. They habitually stop people with the hope of finding unknown criminality, and that needs to stop.
As I said in my O.P., the Terry Decision was based on the officer actually observing the person doing something suspicious before stopping him.
@@ipsurvivor No. you're wrong. And it's not even close to how incorrect you are. ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html. LEARN the truth -- not the lies from this fraud.
@@deezynar So..... what's your point? If the seizure is made based on no suspicion, then it's a bad stop. And what ever "stuff" the cop finds on the guy will be thrown out.
@@monkberrymoon4042
My point has been clearly explained.
Cops should not stop or speak to anyone if they don't have evidence that the person committed a crime.
“McFadden’s concern for his own safety”
McFadden went and confronted them.
I've been a lawyer for, like, 30 years, and I've never heard anyone make this argument against Terry before. You really think that a policeman that investigates a suspicious situation is, well, asking for trouble? I mean, if you believe that police shouldn't exist, I guess that makes sense. But as long as we have them, don't you think they should be allowed to "confront" people that potentially doing something criminal?
Thanks for continuing to make the Supreme Court Briefs series. It's great to hear about these past cases that I would otherwise probably never hear about. Your videos are a perfect balance of historical context, case summary, and outcome. Keep them coming please.
Well thanks for the kind words!
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I think an important part of this case is the suspects suspicious behavior before the stop and frisk. If it was done today the police would need video of the behavior before they could stop and frisk, not an insurmountable requirement with today's technology.
Today we do have the luxury of more easily documenting things to justify reasonable suspicion .
There is no holding by any court , that I’m aware of, that requires video verification of suspicious activity prior to being able to perform a Terry Stop and/or a Terry frisk.
Video has certainly been used to help establish that reasonable articulable suspicion was present at the time of many police encounters...but I haven’t seen where it is now required.
Video has also had a huge impact on civil litigation (See Scott v. Harris, Supreme Court 2007) but there is still litigation that lacks video evidence.
The credibility of witnesses is still what it has been for a long time.
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@iammrbeat I definitely agree, and this behavior seemed really suspicious.
Do not rely of the fantasy that “today” we have more technology to prove the age old problem. That would be unwise and dismiss 99.9% of injustices worldwide.
4:21 "the decision has unintended consequences"
No, I disagree. I think the consequences were extremely intended.
The police were definitely expecting something
I think there’s a difference between just ‘frisking’ someone who seems suspicious and pressing their head down on the hood of a car. If the police was less aggressive then they’d probably have more people defending the Stop-and-Frisk policy instead of fighting to abolish it
A very good point. There is so much gray area, and many police officers conduct stop-and-frisk in a professional way.
The police citing "not wanting to be frisked" as their reason to believe a person is suspicious doesn't help.
@@rangergxi that doesn't stand in court
6 out of 10 cops take excessive force as a fringe benefit... you know... like speeding. { Whata you gonna do ? ? Call a cop ?? }
@@Dakotaidk According to Terry v. Ohio a frisk is also a search which implicates the Fourth Amendment.
I've been enjoying your channel Lately Mr beat. Keep up the good work. Who ever wins the 2020 election will you upload a election video?
Thank you! And yes I plan on making an election of 2020 video.
I really like the way you revealed that Terry and Chilton were black and that Katz was white. Some say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this is a prefect example. As we all know, searching the two black men and not the white man as well is VERY """reasonable""" and warrants search and seizure.
I look forward to the next Supreme Court Briefs!
Crazy thing is, I've been teaching this case for years and didn't know until only recently that Terry and Chilton were black.
@@iammrbeat You've been "teaching" this case for years. How is it you never actually researched it?
Some would say that those who choose to believe some UA-cam guy with a questionable history of honesty, without looking into things for themselves, are suckers
@@bjs301 And some would say that trumpists are idiots.
@@kelvinpang438, and, you know, the vast majority of the time, they'd be right.
Do you agree with the Court in this case?
Which Supreme Court case should I cover next for this series?
Also, don't forget to download Newsvoice for free here to support my channel: newsvoice.com/mrbeat
I love democracy
The latest one on Trump's Tax returns/ contraceptives for religious organization/ discrimination against Lgbtq rights
Democracy is Best
Please do Planned Parenthood v Casey
Do I agree?
Supreme Court Briefs are my favorite Mr. Beat videos. Thank you so much for making these.
I just appreciate you watching them, and I'm so glad they can help!
These may not do as well as your other videos but oh man are they important. If anyone wants to know about the evolution of our “rights” as citizens this is where to go.
It’s incorrect. He’s not doing this other than for video views. This is incorrect data
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Just finished watching all your old Supreme Court Briefs videos and now there's a new one for me! :) Amazing series!
Thanks for watching!
@@iammrbeat oh my God you did more damage? How much damage have you done? I’m gonna have to take a look at the rest of the things that you’ve done
It sucks how much stop and frisk is abused
I'm sure the justices had no idea how much it would be abused in the following decades.
My favorite series is back! Thanks Mr. Beat!
Well I guess I have to make more of these then. :D
Gosh I hope not. This video is all lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
John Terry went on to slip and miss a penalty in the 2008 UCL final that costed Chelsea their first Champions League Trophy and handed it to Manchester United. Its a small world.
💀💀💀
I know you said this series doesn't get as many views as other videos, but it is one of my favourite types of video you make you do so keep everything up!
Thanks so much!
I just found this channel and I LOVE being taught something I never knew the story behind it
Mike Bloomberg sees this vid and starts breathing Heavily...
Freaking Bloomberg. I thought it was funny when Trump criticized Bloomberg for stop-and-frisk, and then a week later is all of sudden for stop-and-frisk again.
@@iammrbeat Welcome to politics 🤣
@@iammrbeat I think it was the hypocrisy of the candidate running for that party and holding that view at the same time
@@iammrbeat The 2 Party System in a nutshell.
thanks for making these
they help a lot w/class
your craft is much appreciated
You'll flunk if you write down almost anything this guy said. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Stop-and-Frisk seems like an infringement of citizen rights. Interesting food for thought. I like your "Supreme Court Briefs" videos!
And yet, it's so common these days. Glad you like the series. :D
If it came out a minute ago how did you watch it 4 days ago
@@sigmaballsnetwork She's a Patreon supporter. They get early access to videos.
@@iammrbeat How is the comment from G Guerrard 4 days old when the video was uploaded just a few hours ago?
@@shyam14111986 yeah what
Thanks for doing this video Mr Beat, never knew about this!
And you still don't -- this video is completely false at every level and lies at a lot of place. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Mr. Beat, you are one of my favorite social studies teachers. You have helped me learn a lot over the years I have watched you. Never stop!
Thank you so much!
Rocco -- he creates videos for LIKES and Views -- he starts off by lying and it never stop. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Great video. I enjoy your editing style. It makes some great consumable history videos. Keep up the good work.
Thanks so much! :D
I'm an expert on Terry v Ohio -- this was a very disgusting video. This person made things up ALOT -- ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
My favorite series! Thank you Mr. Beat.
Thank YOU :)
Emmerson -- this video is a fabrication. It's not the truth. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Thank you for your video as always :)
love the added detail about the vote and reasoning behind the one vote, very important man. Thank you!
This series it’s how I first came to your channel. Keep them coming
Will do!
Oh no-- Not only is this vid inaccurate - it's lies. I'm an expert on ONE THING: Terry v Ohio. ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Great video!
Thank you for the video, i have a paper on this case!! And this information is very helpful!!
I’m not a fan of stop-and-frisk, but I’m curious on what an alternate solution could be to it since there are situations where people actually look suspicious
Solution? It seems to me police are creating problems, as stop-and-frisk does NOT reduce crime. The alternative would be to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Things aren't always what they seem, especially when everyone has prejudice.
@@iammrbeat how can you be sure it doesn't reduces crime without explaining a negative? It's been around since the 60's. I'd bet it does reduce crime. It at least catches bad guys after a crime. Terry stops can happen, before, during and after a crime.
@@Truths_Sayer Dude -- you just don't know and this guy's video didn't help with all the lies. I've downloaded it and Ill be coming after him for his lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
President During this time: Lyndon B. Johnson
Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Argued December 12, 1967
Decided June 10, 1968
Case Duration: 181 Days
Decision: 8-1 in favor of Ohio
Thank you!
Just had my truck seized and they are saying its set for forfeiture. Even though the fines are way less than the value of the truck. They state it was involved in the crime even though it wasn't. 7 other cases similar they did not take the vehicle but they did with mine because it is paid for. Doesn't the 8th Amendment protect me from this type of government theft?
> pat down all 3 suspects
>> feels guns on two of them
>>>reaches in to the pockets of the men with guns
Where is the racism there?
Thank you
Wow, so relevant with regards to the events that happened after George Floyd. Even without his brutal death, this sort of thing is incredibly touchy to people who have that sort of thing happen to them more often than others. Small wonder they got so mad after George Floyd was killed
It still happens every day. Thanks goodness for cell phones to capture it now.
@@iammrbeat the most significant time prior to today, where there was so much pushback after something divisive, as far as I can tell, was during 1968. The Tet Offensive during Vietnam rocked both the population (leading to people taking to the streets) and the Administration of Lyndon Johnson (people protested outside the White House chanting "hey, hey LBJ, How many kids [did] you kill today?"), ultimately leading him to not seek re-election. But even after that of course, there were still a huge amount of division, protests and pushback, particularly during the Democratic convention in Chicago (as mentioned in your superb series on Presidential Elections in US history Matt :)) with confrontations between the police and the protestors. It's certainly up there with the 2000 and 2016 campaigns in terms of how divided people seemed to be (of course, they're also the two most recent times the winner of the election lost the popular vote)
It's also very touchy to people to whom the Terry frisk was done improperly, like for example, the officer feels your wallet and he knows it's a wallet and picks your pocket anyway. (Brownback v King)
These videos might not be as popular, but they're extremely important to produce. Thank you for continuing to release solid content, especially related to hot topics like the powers of the police. I, for one, love Supreme Court Briefs
Well then learn it correctly. This video is pure lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Love your channel !
Gotta agree with the court here.
One of the worst Supreme Court decisions
It definitely had many, MANY unintended consequences.
@@iammrbeat Incarceration rates skyrocketed it after Terry v. Ohio. Police brutality i'm sure also skyrocketed.
I am a new subscriber. Love your videos! First saw you from “the beat goes on”
You should Unsubscribe to these lies. My career is to Overturn Terry v Ohio-- compare his lies to the truth: Very sad -- this video is lies and fabrications. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
I think it's okay for the police to conduct a stop-and-frisk if they have a reasonable suspicious that a crime is to imminently committed. So imminent that a warrant could not be requested in time
That sounds ok to me most of the time, but the problem is there is a slippery slope, and "reasonably suspicious" is fairly subjective.
I'd like to agree with you in principle, but the amount of times cops catch an imminent crime before it happens without a warrant is incredibly rare lol
@@iammrbeat a slippery slope yes but eliminating it would be backwards. How about cops on the way to a serious domestic assault or another serious crime and someone is running away? Shouldn't they be stopped? The list goes on and on. I think courts after the fact determining what is reasonable is really the best solution on a case by case basis.
@@iammrbeat Can't the court rule on that after the fact? Whether it was reasonable?
@@Truths_Sayer Stop and frisk is COMPLETELY backwards. It doesn't make anyone safer and is used as a tool to strike fear into minority communities. You shouldn't need to wait for police to abuse their power to act on it (Ignoring the fact that the police abuse their power with no consequences constantly)
Awesome content. I wish I had learned a quarter of what your sharing with us in school.
DO NOT SHARE THIS IN SCHOOL!! OMFG -- he made shit up bro. It's all lies. ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
It's super helpful thanks for your effort
No -- Un-learn the lies. He lied the whole video. He created this for views and likes. He's a fraud, my friend. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
I love these Supreme Court briefs!!! 👏👏
He lied the entire thing. None of this is accurate or even close to the truth. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
The supreme court turned the US into a police state with this one. They weaseld around the 4th amendments seizure by creating "detainment" where you are not technically being arrested but you are not free to leave while the police do an unconstitutional search, lie to you and threaten you trying to squeeze probable cause out of you in the name of "officer safety", which was not even an issue in this case but was just pulled out of some judges ass to justify trashing our rights. My channel has a video that takes a comprehensive look at how the supreme court re-defined words and added non-issues to justify this. I like to think that the supreme court justices that voted for this are in the lower levels of hell being sodomized repeatedly by large hell hounds while they are forced to watch the deaths and brutal beatings of innocent people by police that have happened because of their ruling which, when you listen carefully to them, was motivated by racism.
Thank you Terri for making this become such a controversy. I only like this when it is used LIKE IT WAS INTENDED NOT ABUSED!!
It needs to come back in NYC.
Excellent police work
Justice Douglas was way ahead of his time.
I think him more and more the more I learn about him.
I didn't realize the supreme court briefs didn't do as well as the other videos. I think they are some of the most interesting ones
Sure they are -- when you make up lies for it to be differ than reality... compare his lies to the true Terry v Ohio saga that plagues America today: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
great video
Basically the court skipped over the 4th amendment
Yes -- and he lied about the case. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
You forgot the most important part: The police have a limited amount of time and scope to hold someone under reasonable suspicion. In Terry's case, had he not been carrying a weapon, the detective would have - say - 20 minutes at most. If his suspicions were dispelled, he would have to let the men go. If during those 20 minutes, he finds probable cause to believe that the men were conspiring to commit a robbery, the detective could escalate the Terry stop to an arrest. Otherwise, the detective has to let the men go; however, the detective may continue the investigation and - if he then develops probable cause against the men - he may obtain an arrest warrant.
Shh. That won't make as good of a video because then he can't claim racism as well
Ur actually carrying my history grade rn tysm
When you can, you should do Planned Parenthood v Casey! It’s a pretty important one helping explain reproductive rights. Love your series!
He made it
Great work! Terry is such an interesting case. I think we might cover Terry someday in the future. The political implications of the Majority opinion are jarring.
If you do; disregard this entire video. This man lied and made things up. He is really-- he did a disservice to you. I'm an expert on Terry -- EDU for real - not some fraud like this guy... ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Seems like someone saw this ruling and thought they could use it to fuel their prisons yikes
Didn’t the court also say the detained suspects must also be believed to be armed and dangerous prior to being frisked.
At first I thought this was a comparison video and was curious where Terry was lol
I agree with the dissenting vote
Yeah-=-- This guy made things up -- bad job-- Mr Beat would be fired --- he lied, a lot. ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Will and or when will the Supreme Court rehearsal Terry Vs Ohio..??
Overturn Terry V Ohio
Please do a "worst supreme court decisions" video
This is a complicated issue and I don't know a lot, but what I do know is that Detective McFadden had probable cause in that particular instance
I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
What ups Mr beat July 2020 and can give a ❤️
Hey
Thanks Dude
Your supreme court videos are by far my favorite videos you make.
I'm so sorry to read this -- he made it up. It's not true. Terry v Ohio is my career. Sad he misled and lied to so many people Compare the truth to his lies: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
kinda silly to say the police has more authority than a magistrate to execute searches, when a police officer can personally observe crimes and magistrates can't, and magistrates' jobs involves lots of subjectivity in decisionmaking as well.
Do not discontinue SCB!!
I'll keep making them, though I've slowed down making them lately.
The government can not give the government permission to ignore the constitution so government can government..
You better have good reasonable articulable suspicion that I've committed a crime or are about to commit a crime or your not getting any info from me. See you in court for your lawsuit.
you should do a video reviewing hamilton, if you can. because i, as a huge history nerd and theatre nerd was not a fan because of the historical inaccuracies and i'd love to see your opinion as well!!
Let's hope he moves on from things that others are experts on. If you hate historical inaccuracies - you're gonna hate finding out this video is pure lies. Compare the truth. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
It’s crazy how these seemingly good decisions get manipulated to benefit a minority. I love the Supreme Court Briefs series! Thank you!
oh that's so sad -- this video he produced is garbage... he lied. He lies about a ton of things... compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
John Terry, like the Chelsea legend 😂
Never knew this happens and it’s in my hometown
It did NOT happen like this ... here's how it happened. ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Not sure if you're still doing this series or are taking suggestions from UA-cam comments, but you think you could do a video on Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia?
Define "reasonable suspicion".
Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable, articuable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.
The "reasonable" part of it is supposed to be based on experience in law enforcement. Would another officer who is objective also be suspicious of the situation? If so, the suspicion is reasonable.
The articuable factor is also very important. It is extremely important that an officer can articulate why they believe the individual or situation to be suspicious. In short, if an officer is going to stop someone based on reasonable suspicion, they better be able to explain to a judge or attorney why they stopped them.
And 2 years later? Enjoy the crime wave NYC 👍🏼😁
1:53 There *"was"* this law called the exclusionary rule.
Damn respect for Douglas
I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
This is all lies this guy Mr Beats made up.
Wow, I am actually watching a video that talks about an incident on Halloween, on Halloween.
And that's how Terry versus Ohio violates the 4th amendment because it changes persons in the 4th amendment to officer safety and it changes probable cause to reasonable articulate suspicion which violates the Fourth amendment just because our officer is suspicious of you do not give him the right to put his hands on you until you committed a crime or violated some kind of penal code like the Fourth amendment says it's the right of the people to be secure in their person's papers houses in effect against unreasonable searches and seizures a warrant shall not be issued but only upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seen supported by all the affirmation now where does it say in the 4th amendment that a cop has the right to walk up to you because he's suspicious of you and start touching you like he's sexually assaulting you when all he has is suspicion of you because that's what they're doing they can use that indiscriminately against anybody that that police officer don't like the way that he looks the way that he or she walks that's not specifics on how reasonable suspicion can be used they got to be actual facts for Blue line terrace to sexually assault you because that is unwanted touching by a complete stranger and you don't know this complete stranger mental state
In the words of nute gunray, Is that legal?
Oh Nute.
@@iammrbeat 😂 nice one
"I will make it legal"
Since you already went over two of the major cases in Search and Seizure, might as well knock put Tennesse v. Gardner now
Wickard v. Filburn next please
Supreme Court Briefs is my favorite.
I hope you truly learn the facts -- I've seen two vids by this fraud -- Terry and Graham - -Both were full of lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
Qualified immunity needs to end. You can't enforce the law by breaking it. The fact that the Terry v Ohio decision is predicated on 'reasonable suspicion' means the policy enforcers get it wrong most of the time because they're always frisking people without suspicion that would be considered reasonable.
The NYPD took it a step too far with their "stop and kiss" program imo
What it is the number of homicides by race in New York City if you want to prove a point?
McGirt v Oklahoma next!
I'll wait awhile before I do that one, but great suggestion.
Chille needs to school you. It’s coming…
Thanks -- look at ALLL these people he LIED TO for Views and Likes. What a POS.
Supreme Court briefs made me laugh.
Man, interesting stuff Mr. Beat. Didn't think that the stop-and-frisk procedure would be racist. I wonder would the detective had been around to see what's going on after what's happening in recent events.
I agree, the implications were much bigger than any of them could ever imagine.
@@iammrbeat I couldn't agree more.
Zachariah -- Mr. Beat is just like William Archibald Dunnin and the Sisters of the Confederacy. This video is completely wrong-- made up garbage. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: ua-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/v-deo.html
The SCOTUS ruled that NY's stop and frisk program was illegal under the 4th Amendment. NY said they were going to continue doing it anyway (or at least until they found another way of doing it).
I don't think the YT algorithm understands the Ohio meme 💀
Creates Reasonable Suspicion to Replace the Stricter #ProbableCause
It's the first step on the slippery slope to a totalitarian police state. Clarence Thomas's opinion for the Court in Brownback v King stating that the district court was correct in its judgement on James King's lawsuit is the latest. The implications are:
1) Totality of circumstances is no longer necessary for RAS
2) Undercover police don't have to tell you who they are even if they come off as impersonators and you ask them to identify themselves.
3) Police can pick your pocket during a Terry search no matter what because "artfully concealed weapons"
4) Trying to escape and attempting to flee a criminal act against you by unknown officers is "resisting arrest"
5) Biting an unknown officer because he was actively choking you is "assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm"
6) Flailing your arms in an attempt to escape a perceived kidnapping and a battery because the first officer is pounding you in the face and head and the other officer put a handcuff on one of your wrists is "felonious assault with a dangerous weapon"
7) Items 4) 5) and 6) are each probable cause to arrest you. Never mind the obvious self-defense and entrapment!