The Debate Against Probable Cause

Terry V. Ohio: The Debate against Probable Cause

Have you ever wondered if a police officer is doing the right thing? Only by having probable cause or a warrant is it legal. The decision of the case Terry V. Ohio was important because it justifies for Officer McFadden's actions, it verified the need for probable cause, and it settled the debate on whether or not probable cause is unconstitutional.

Officer Martin McFadden had been a detective and a police man for thirty-nine years. He had also been patrolling a downtown street corner in Cleveland, Ohio for a similar amount of years. Under his department magistrate he was considered, "as a loyal, reasonably prudent officer of the law." (Lewis 72.) He was trusted and rightly so. He had had many years of worthwhile experience as a cop and as an undercover detective and he was well known throughout the community as a reliable friend and family member.

Officer McFadden was patrolling his normal stop or area when he noticed two men on a street corner, walking alternately back and forth, pausing to look in the same store window which occurred about twenty-four times. After observing the window they would go back to the man and quickly converse, sometimes being joined by a third man. Suspecting a daylight robbery being planned, McFadden approached the three men and asked their names. In response, they, "mumbled something", where upon he spun the one who appeared to be the leader around and searched his outward clothes. He found a pistol in his coat pocket and ordered the men into the adjoining store where he searched the other two men and found another revolver. McFadden then arrested the three men and took them to jail. They were charged with carrying illegal weapons and sentenced to 2 years in jail by the Ohio Supreme Court. (Galveston 998).

This case goes to show how police officers can be refined in their actions, or less so. (Cowries 279). Probable cause ensures that smart officers have the right to arrest someone they know is guilty to ensure that the criminal doesn't get away and cause even more trouble than before. But without probable cause, we would have problems in our integrity system, such as why we couldn't trust police officers because they would be arresting anyone and everyone just to get paid more money.(Gore 75)

The need for probable cause in our country today is a heated debate in which the U.S. Supreme Court must decide. Should probable cause be required to conduct a search or seizure? The court explains the excessive need by saying, "...that without probable cause, many false arrests and accusations would be made," (Homnens 46.) if probable cause was not instituted in the fourth amendment in the bill of rights, where would our government be today? We would be in almost complete chaos, because probable cause is that one leash on police men from arresting whoever they feel like without physical evidence or a crime. We would also have major problems within our country's integrity system because