What was the ruling in Terry v Ohio?
8–1 decision In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry.
What is the Belton rule?
Rule: When a policeman has made a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile.
Why is the Terry v Ohio case important?
Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court ruled that it is not unconstitutional for American police to “stop and frisk” a person they reasonably suspect to be armed and involved in a crime.
Who was Martin McFadden?
McFadden was a 38-year veteran when his actions on the job triggered an 8-1 Supreme Court decision officially sanctioning the law enforcement tactic called stop and frisk. McFadden joined the Cleveland Police Department in 1925 and was shortly promoted to detective.
What is the synonym of exigent?
In this page you can discover 40 synonyms, antonyms, idiomatic expressions, and related words for exigent, like: severe, exacting, oppressive, taxing, pressing, facile, burning, imperative, urgent, difficult and critical.
What was the case of Chimel vs California?
Chimel v. Cal., 395 U.S. 752, 89 S. Ct. 2034, 23 L. Ed. 2d 685, 1969 U.S. LEXIS 1166 (U.S. June 23, 1969) Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Chimel (the “defendant”), was arrested inside his home and police asked him for consent to search the home. The defendant refused the request.
What did the officers do in the Chimel case?
Chimel protested but the officers insisted that the arrest warrant gave them the authority to do so. The officers proceeded to search every room of the house. In two rooms, they instructed Chimel’s wife to open drawers.
Why was the search of Chimel’s home unreasonable?
Chimel then appealed his conviction claiming the search of his whole home violated the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it exceeded the scope of a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest of the area in the possession and control of the arrestee.
What was the date of Ted Chimel’s arrest?
The relevant facts are essentially undisputed. Late in the afternoon of September 13, 1965, three police officers arrived at the Santa Ana, California, home of the petitioner with a warrant authorizing his arrest for the burglary of a coin shop.