Terry v. Ohio
These administrative bodies have two major roles towards securing the rights of every American Citizen. These are rulemaking, as well as its enforcement. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, agencies receive rulemaking requirements, adjudicatory standards and hearing procedures. The role of the administrative state in public policy making, involves engaging the public, whilst creating the regulations. This is to ensure that law makers do not overstep and amend laws that they do not be undermine the citizens’ constitutional rights (Wetterer, 1998).
Since the fourth amendment, it is unlawful to search, seize and detain a person without properly coming up with strong evidence, which could warrant such action. It is evident that that these unreasonable technicalities should be put aside because they make justice hard to be reached. In some instances, police believe that the Search and seizure restrictions have made it difficult to put criminals to justice (Wetterer, 1998).
However, critics have criticized the efforts to criticize the fourth amendment mandate to stop the search and seizure operations claiming that the amendment has overstepped the required mandate. They claim that such matters should only be left to the befitting parties to decide (Wetterer, 1998). Critics fear that the amendment could be undermining constitutional rights of persons involved because an Administrative Law is created and enforced by a legal, administrative body. This criterion is designed according to the agency handling it. These may be executive, independent or legislative, depending on the authority given to an agency.
The Terry v. Ohio case has been the cornerstone of the fourth amendment critics as it outlines the instances in which stop, search and seizures can be implemented. The case of Terry v. Ohio is a modification of the stop and search law. The idea of stopping and search is unlawful under the fourth amendment. However, the Terry v. Ohio case allows such actions under suspicion, or less evidential circumstances. Although they are allowed, the police must not follow a hunch but must be motivated by reasonable suspicion or probable cause (Zalman, 2011).
Terry v. Ohio case clearly highlights instances that can lead to arrest on the streets, tight places, roads and airports. The case also stipulates the instances when arrests and searches have been used to charge individuals without any reasonable suspicion. However, this is clearly stipulated, and many cases compared to give a clear guideline to the police while carrying out field interrogations.
Arrest” versus a “Terry Stop
Terry v. Ohio case provided a loop hole to the police because the fourth amendment prohibits stops and searches as well as arrests. The police can now utilize the “terry Stop” to temporarily stop a suspicious person and frisk him or her, or the vehicle they are traveling with (Zalman, 2011). However, the law allows just temporary stops and light frisking on suspicion in the case of “terry Stop”. One cannot be extensively detained or be subjected to an extensive search.
On the other hand, an arrested person does not have the rights as the person who has been “Terry Stopped”. A person who has been arrested is subjected to extensive search and frisking to support his criminal charges. Notably, a person who has been arrested is already thought to be guilty of the charges. So, the police have the right to detain him until enough evidence has been found (Zalman, 2011).
The Fourth Amendment Relation to the case
The Fourth Amendment protects any American citizen from unjustified and unreasonable seizers and searches. This means that, unless, there is concrete evidence linking one to a crime, the amendment protects the suspect from search and seizer. This case describes the efforts made to challenge the Amendment. According to the research, criminals have continued to walk free of charge because the law does not hold them accountable.
The case of Terry v. Ohio is a modification of the stop and search law. The Terry v. Ohio case clearly puts the fourth amendment into consideration, but moves to modify it to allow the police a slight window of opportunity where they can act on suspicion. The Terry v. Ohio case has been the foundation of the fourth amendment critics as it provides a back drop of the instances in which stop, search and seizures can be executed. The idea of stopping and search is unlawful under the fourth amendment (Zalman, 2011). However, the Terry v. Ohio case allows such actions under suspicion, or less evidential circumstances. Although they are allowed, the police must not follow a hunch but must be motivated by reasonable suspicion or probable cause. This allows the police to act in instances where they think that the fourth amendment may hinder justice provision (Zalman, 2011).
The case of Terry v. Ohio has provided the police with a unique opportunity to arrest a person who can be dangerous to the society. Some individuals escaped justice because they were protected by the fourth amendment. However, if one acts in a manner that is provocative or suspicious, the police are able to investigate the matter. This is a good thing, and it improves the work of the police.
References
Wetterer, C. M. (1998). The Fourth Amendment: search and seizure. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers.
Zalman, M. (2011). Criminal procedure: constitution and society (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
