Terry v Ohio: is is pro-liberty or pro-order?

Question

My teacher said it was pro-order and then all of a sudden she said its pro-liberty because of the time it was cased in (1968). So I really don't get it. It seems like both. But I'm going to type a paper on it, so I need to know which one is deifnetly it ( I guess pro-order?). Please help.

Answer 1

Terry v. Ohio operates as a pro order law. It is an extremely important law in the realm of Criminal Constitutional Law. It allows officers to frisk someone (feel the outside layers of their clothing) based upon "reasonable suspicion" which is a lower standard than probable cause. This is chiefly designed as a personal safety initiative. Later cases have given more rights to police, such as the rule that if police have the suspicion that the person has a weapon, they can order someone out of the car and then perform a cursory sweep of the accessible areas of the car.

The only way it could be labeled pro-liberty is that it allowed for a very serious police concern (that of encountering people with weapons) to be addressed and lessened with out destroying too much of the fourth amendment rights guaranteed. The amount of intrusion in a Terry frisk is not very heavy.

Answer 2

Terry v Ohio was a good win for Law Enforcement. It allows us to utilize our instincts and not be punished for it. It has the potential for abuse, but in the hands of a good honest officer it is a great tool. It is definitely not pro liberty.

Answer 3

TERRY V OHIO 392 US 1; 88 S CT 1868; 29 LED 2D 889 (1968)
QUESTION BEFORE THE COURT:
WAS TERRY'S RIGHT TO PERSONAL SECURITY VIOLATED BY AN UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE?

THE COURT FOUND FOR OFFICER MCFADDEN, THAT HE HAD THE RIGHT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVED TO DO A PAT SEARCH OTHER THEN AND EXPLORATORY SEARCH WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF CONTENTION.

"THIS MEANS HE DID NOT PLACE HIS HANDS IN THEIR POCKETS OR UNDER THE OUTER SURFACE OF THEIR GARMENTS UNTIL HE FELT A WEAPON, AND THEN HE MERELY REACHED FOR AND REMOVED THE GUNS.
THE SOLE JUSTIFICATION IN THE SEARCH WAS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE OFFICER AND OTHERS NEARBY, AND IT MUST THEREFORE BE CONFINED IN SCOPE TO AN INTRUSION REASONABLY DESIGNED TO DISCOVER GUNS, KNIVES, CLUBS, OR OTHER HIDDEN INSTRUMENTS FOR THE ASSAULT OF THE POLICE OFFICER."

BASED ON THESE FACTS THE CASE WAS PRO-ORDER.