Terry v. Ohio | Case Law for Cops 

Thanks for this video. I've seen hundreds of auditing videos of unlawful detainment where the Sergeant had to show up and correct the officer. Training like this is needed so we stop losing our tax dollars in court.

It’s very curious that the average citizen knows Terry V Ohio better than the average cop.

Great Explanation. Terry has become perhaps the most ABUSED ruling in law enforcement history. “You look suspicious. Give me your ID and I’m going to search you as part of my investigation” not reasonable suspicion of a specific crime being committed just “suspicious.” It seems like the courts definitely need to address this issue in greater detail. Perhaps there needs to be another high-level case that makes more of a differentiation

This is one of the many problems with cops today. They treat every weapons pat down as automatic.

Having watched countless 1A audits, I've formed the opinion that most LEOs don't know what the word articulate means and don't seem to understand there are SIX words in RAS. I can't tell you how many times I've see a cop go from a consensual encounter to a Terry frisk for no more than "I have reasonable suspicion", "of what crime", "I didn't say you were committing a crime, it's just suspicious". Six words and they drop four. Now what you're saying is that when those same LEOs go from RS (Reasonable unarticulated Suspicion of no crime) to a pat down, they are defacto violating a citizen's rights. Good to know. Of course, I'm not naïve enough to believe someone holding a ABA membership card will actually hold them accountable for their ignorance, but that's a whole other conversation.

Years later Terry killed a drug store owner in Columbus Ohio and was killed himself when the owner shot back. This could have happened on Halloween 1963 if Detective Martin McFadden had not acted. Uncle Marty!

Great videos. Thank you so much.

These videos are great. Very well thought out and explained. I wish there was a channel like this for MT

Great presentation! I follow several channels to learn about our "rights" and have learned quite a bit. Too bad it appears cops don't appear to adhere to the law in many cases. After all "officer safety" seems to trump case law especially at traffic stops according to what is recorded on RU-vid via Lackluster, the civil rights attorney, etc.

Eric is one of the good guys. Appreciate your time and energy.

Great explanation. Thank you

Microphone class is in session. You don't have to speak directly into the mic's pickup element, but the mic should be pointed directly at your mouth. The sideways mic technique isn't nearly as cool as people think it is, and it's not good technique because it's 90 degrees off axis (pointed 90 degrees away from the source). You have the mic pointed at the wall, where "room bounce" lives, instead of the source. You want the mic to primarily capture the sound coming out of your mouth, right? Well, the same as you would turn your head to best hear a sound source, point the mic at the source; your mouth. To avoid popping Ps and plosives (and blocking the camera's view of your mouth or face), slide the mic slightly off to the side, but keep it pointing at your mouth without talking directly into it. Also, remember that the lower you place the mic, the more throat and chest resonance will be heard. The higher its placed, the more nasally you sound. Use headphones to find the best placement. The presence of your voice will improve, the room noise will decrease, and audio engineers won't get a chuckle out of your clever technique. Oh, and this technique works for non-attorneys as well. Now go forth, internet people, and sound your best!

also, cops ignore the armed and dangerous requirement all the time, just look up traffic stop vids, always patting down ppl illegally

I did know that we lived in a time of precog, meaning that of defendant has not committed a crime, that we can now lock them up before they do so.

Excellent video and explanation. A follow up question: in a state that is NOT stop and ID, can an officer lawfully order the detainee to identify?

Pat down on the outside of clothing. No rummaging through pockets

Halloween day is coming soon On Haloween 1963 my Uncle, Detective McFadden stopped Terry, Chilton and Cats on Playhouse Square in Cleveland, Ohio.

Great breakdown

My problem is when a cop pulls you over for a headlight or a license plate light or a made up reason. They start with the prodding questions like your a criminal knowing they ran your plate and you identified yourself and they know you are a law abiding citizen and they try to run you through like a criminal. This has happened to me several times in my life. I'm always courteous but when a cop starts lying that's where I end the being nice about their BS. Once I had to go to court 3 times to get a case thrown out without an attorney because I was in the right. The cop lied and said I ran a red light to pull me over to see if I was drinking. 6 cruisers and my girlfriend in the car for a Cops lie, and they even admitted they had nothing better to do! the prosecutor approached me on the 3rd court appearance. He asked me how far I was willing to take this. I was shocked! I said all the way because your deputy has no proof of me committing a violation. He asked if I had an attorney I advised I don't need one to beat this case. There should have never been one. All said and done I walked out of the court room that day with no ticket or violations on my record. This cost me three days of work due to the cop not showing up for the first 2 trial dates. Once I had him in the courtroom I questioned his actions and proof of my wrong doing. He had no proof except for I saw you! I said oh now we can just say someone did something and it costs them money and time. He burst out with I'm an officer of the law. I said well even officers of the law need proof of wrongdoing not here say! Then I asked didn't you state you had nothing better to do that night to your coworkers while you had me pulled over, and be truthful you are under oath! He stated Yes and the judge threw it out. So sad this ever happened!

Citizens: Why you want my I.D? What crime I have committed? Cops: by not giving your I.D, you are obstruction of my investigation. And that’s a crime. Citizens: WTF?!

I just love how people watch a 16 minute video about how the details in case can make a stop and frisk legal, but then go on to claim cops never ever are allowed to do what Terry V Ohio says they can. It's almost like they have no idea what they are talking about. Someone being belligerent to a lawful order is a danger. Cause if they aren't going to listen to, "give me your ID so I can write a ticket," then why would it be reasonable to think that person will comply with orders like, "step back," or "don't reach for that gun." I also find it hilarious that everyone that claims "reasonable articulate suspicion" has no idea what that means. You were speeding, RAS to pull you over and detain you, you cause a violation. If you refuse to comply with lawful orders such as "get out of the car" or "show me your ID," then you are obstructing and breaking another law, RAS.

Thorough…thank you.

True story: I was randomly walking down the street one evening, and a police cruiser pulled beside me, the blue lights came on, the officer came out of the vehicle and approached me. I said, "can I help you officer?" He replied, "I'm not sure" as he grabbed both my hands, put them behind my back in an arm-lock position and pulled me over to his cruiser. I was terrified and had no idea what was going on. He said, "we're investigating a crime and you match the description of the suspect". (I had nothing to do with it). He demanded ID. I gave it because I thought I was legally required to. After 10 minutes or so another cruiser rolled up and I heard the officer in that vehicle say "that's not him". The 1st cop let me go, but he was a total prick, clearly didn't give a shit about violating a totally innocent citizen's rights. A) was that a legal detainment? B) was I legally required to identify myself? (I'm NOT in a "stop and identify" state C) was the officer legally allowed to place his hands on me? It felt like assault and I gave no indication I wasn't cooperative or not going to follow his verbal instructions.

sounds very subjective in favor of the officer to search people. I saw a "bulge" so they are suspicious of being armed and dangerous.

I appreciate this explanation. I recently discovered Chille and his delete lawz channel and heard his explanation of why terry v Ohio should be overturned. Not every officer has 30 years patrol experience to rely on when deeming someone suspicious however when you explained it as detailing and stating the facts not jumping to a conclusion of one “being suspicious” makes more sense and in my opinion the jump is being made more than the former nowadays. My question with all due respect is the thin blue line flag. Can you please articulate what it means to you and why? I saw it as supporting your police force but as I watch more and more police operate I feel like it’s an us(police) vs them(the people) mentality. I support good officers honoring the oath they choose to make the the constitution. It deserves some of the highest of societies praises. However I do not see the oath honored. I probably am watching to many outlier videos. All I know is we need Good officers and I am afraid all we have are order takers just “doing their job” and that doesn’t end well

First and foremost thank you for providing us NM cops with your videos! Speaking to my crew we had a question about having Investigative Detention duration. We’ve come across with people who have out of state extraditable warrants so we handcuff them and wait for the warrant confirmation. Usually it only takes between 5 to 20 minutes and once confirmed we effect the arrest. There has been a few instances when the confirmation takes much longer than that and we wanted to know the length and duration an Investigative Detention was allowed. Thank you!

Good video! I've been looking for stuff to listen to while I do cardio. Keep up the good work

We're gonna overturn a Terry Vs. OHIO! TOO BAD, SO SAD, COPPERS!

My daughter was pulled over because the officer said in his report that the listed vehicle committed a traffic violation by not using their turn signal within turning of 100 feet. There was no listed vehicle on the report. He did not give her a ticket. However, he searched her, the ppl in the vehicle, and the vehicle. He said he used a K9 in his report and found drugs. My daughter and ppl in the vehicle said no K9 was used. Also, we just found out he was not scheduled on duty as an officer or a assigned K9 Officer on that day. This is clearly against the laws and constitution amendments, and rights of a citizen.

Cops: Hey! Where are you going? Citizens: I plead 5th Cops: that’s suspicious. Hence, you are under arrest. Citizens: okay! I’m going home. Jeez! Cops: what’s your address? Citizens: WTF?!

I’d like you opinion on a scenario. If witnesses say that a person answered their door naked, can an officer step inside a residence and handcuff the alleged suspect without a search warrant under Terry v Ohio?

1963, this sounds like 3 men with no color TV at home taking turns watching a show of some sort and wanted the officer to leave them alone. Sincerely, Retired MP.

ok, please help us understand how the suspicion of a person maybe going to commit a crime is the justification for reasonable suspicion that a person is armed? if so how far can that go? if they are suspicious they are going to commit a crime, then you are suspicious they have weapons, then if the suspicious of crime you are suspicious that don't pay propper taxes, the suspicious they are a member of organized crime....where does it stop. Are we talking statically probability? thanks

Stumbled upon your channel. I will watch more.

You need to explain to your audience that articulate doesn't mean to fabricate.

and what if they (the civilian) do not consent to contact and walk away?

There are giant problems with the way these investigations are used today. To most officers that I’ve encountered, reasonable suspicion can mean: that “I don’t know if you’re not doing anything wrong, I’m detaining you until you prove to me that you aren’t doing something wrong.” You can’t detain someone based off of not knowing what they’re up to. A detention must be based off of evidence that they are up to something. Then you can’t arrest unless you develop probable cause. Probable cause doesn’t mean that your unsubstantiated claims weren’t proven wrong. The other huge issue is: There is an extreme emphasis put on IDENTIFYING anyone that interacts with police. The vast majority of “investigations,” begin and end with obtaining ID. Even when more efficient and obvious ways of dispelling any suspicion are immediately available to the officer, they will stay on the ID. I’ve had an officer tell me personally that anyone who doesn’t want to provide an ID most likely has warrants. They will continue detentions well past the point where any suspicion has been dispelled solely for the purpose of identifying and checking for warrants. It’s blatantly obvious that the United States is tracking its citizens interactions with police and police contact is clearly a priority for them. Entire arrests for not identifying weren’t normal.

Regardless of one's opinion about the Terry v Ohio decision, the problem I see in many videos is that what you are explaining here is NOT being done. Video after video shows officers, as a matter of ROUTINE frisking individuals they clearly (by their stance, their words, where they stand in relation to the subject, turning their back on the subject, etc.) do NOT think are 'presently armed and dangerous'. They have made frisking/ patting down merely another step in the process of a 'routine' traffic stop, and that is WRONG. This adds to public distrust of police, but if one comes upon an educated person, it opens up the department and city/county to plaintiff-win-able lawsuits.

Don't forget - McFadden also spent 28 years of his 30 under Jim Crow

Why is it that under nm law a search warrant must be granted bya neutral and detached judge (magistrate) yet the same magistrate holds a probable cause hearing and preliminary hearing which he would have to rule against himself

27 legislatures have given their citizens the absolute right to go about armed, either concealed or open. Therefore the armed fork of armed and dangerous doesnt apply in those 27 states. The only other option is dangerous. Leo's can pat down a citizen if he is acting dangerous. If you have no crime, dont interact Or arrest with intent to create a crime to justify the arrest / patdown with being armed as a component of the arrest ( catfishing by masterbaiters )

Citizens: Are you detaining me? Cops: No. I just want to t… hey! Stop. Stop. You can’t leave while I’m talking. Citizens: WTF

Let me get this straight, you make mention it’s possible to be armed and NOT dangerous but make mention to look for a firearm bulge and that would be reasonable suspension for being armed and dangerous

My question has always been, "Why did Officer McFadden not call his precinct for backup when he became suspecious? His actions in confronting three potentially armed and dangerous suspects all by himself gives rise to the lie he frisked them for his safety. The time spent observing the suspects could have been used to set up a sting to catch the suspects in the act and send them to prison for a lot longer than three years. Like so many cops today ego seems to have played a part in McFadden's decissions that day.

Not all states have authorized Terry Stops.

A more accurate description be an alleged potential crime may possibly be being planed?

Reverse Terry vs Ohio.

Break down probable cause

Does Terry v Ohio have anything to say about officers demanding ID from a citizen during a Terry stop? Are you legally required to identify yourself if an officer detains you with RAS?

You said, "Police need evidence that the person is both arned AND dangerous to do a pat down, just being armed doesn't make you dangerous." But then you said, "If you see a bulge that could be a gun, then that's enough to suspect that they could be armed and dangerous."

Sue the cops. Every chance you get they are not your friend. They are not there to help you.

It’s sad how we now live in, what can only be described as, a police state 😢 Personal freedom is a thing of the past, when a cop decides to involve themselves in your life. And with the way qualified immunity is set up, they act without fear of consequences. 🙃

You say that you "see cops mess up all the time." How many cops have you prosecuted for messing up?

Lately, I've been watching videos of "Sovereign Citizens" being stopped, and they quite often demand to know if "this is a Terry stop." Some officers say yes, but I've seen a few that very quickly state no, that it's a traffic stop. To me this sounds like a response they've been trained to give, and it just makes me wonder if traffic stops should be considered a fourth kind of interaction.

I mean. Curious about the 'Police officers are expected to know the law like a lawyers' matches with 'Heien v. North Carolina 2014' where it says 'ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop.' Ya DeleteLawz got me interested in your channel. I mean is there a 'clear and present danger of being armed' requirement and reasonable suspicion of a 'crime being commited' which states in it Terry v Ohio. I know these Civil Rights lawyers just get in the way of good policing with these 1983 lawsuits and getting rid of the qualified immunity.

It needs to be overturned...We don't want Terry stops anymore. Police solve like 4% of crimes and most of the 4% they're probably instigating it through a Terry Stop

#OTVO

Over turn terry V Ohio.

One accept that you may need to cover is that the officer is under color of law and must establish rule of law. Too extent a terry stop or require suspect to surrender there four amendment for id or for the officer to be able to give a valid command or legally arrest a suspect. and that's its illegal to lie coerce threaten with jail there four amendment rights! I know that officers can and are allowed to lie to the suspect about almost anything evidence and witnesses and so forth. If I am wrong please can you state the case law to me!!! what is the indelible right of the fourth amendment case and point 18 U.S.C. § 242 This provision makes it a crime for someone acting under color of law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. Much respect to your video to teach are law enforcement how to protect them and the citizens they are suppose to protect .

The Supreme Court said officers are not supposed to be like a lawyers

This channel has helped me more on my lawsuit against a false arrest than any other. (Charges dropped)Still a thumbs down for the terrorist desecrated American flag in the background.

Terry stops are abused.

But you being a prosecutor would know that federal laws and federal right superseded any state law or state constitution.

One of the most egregious mistakes fumbled by the supreme court of all time.

Off course i ask that u look these messages over n do a reupload addresing these inconsistencies in ur video..will u.?

Sitting in a car and ducking when a cop drives should not give cops the right to surround my car with flashing lights at 11 pm. If I knew then what I do now, I wouldn’t have identified or answered any questions. The only offense was trying to create privacy. The real insult was the flashing lights alerting my friends neighbors to the encounter. Pigs route around until they find something. Suspicion is not a crime. Adversarial discourse must be respected. We should not answer questions as anything we say can be construed against us. That’s not to say cops can’t ask questions. We are not all criminals though politifact says 70% of adults have done something they could be incarcerated for. Cops interact with people on their worst days. Why be a dic about it?

#overturnterry

You can't possibly be a real attorney. This whole thing is lies. Maybe we should contact the bar association and see what they think about this.

"Armed _and_ presently dangerous" makes it clear that simply printing is _not_ enough to justify a Terry frisk. You keep saying "presently armed and dangerous," but the decision says "armed and presently dangerous." I see so many videos of cops frisking someone (especially 1A auditors) "for officer safety," with no discernible indication that the subject meets _either_ criterion. What recourse do the public have when a cop says "I'm going to pat you down for officer safety?"

Detective McFadden was my uncle,

Spq ene ole

Terry v Ohio needs overturned. It's a slap in the face to US Citizens and their Constitution.

Always, always, always film the police AND keep your mouth shut. The only thing they protect and serve is the coffers of their jurisdiction.

Overturn Terry vs Ohio. Individual rights supersede officer safety. Dissolve government tyranny with knowledge of Right vs wrong.

I hope you dropped that trash music intro

You understand who the man was in the frame cord that help bring Terry versus Ohio to life, then you would understand why I shouldn't be on the books

End TVO

You need to look at it who wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court who that person was, who Terry was in Terry versus Ohio, he was a black man and he wasn't supposed to be in downtown hanging around

The problem is your prosecutor not an attorney