Podcast appearances and mentions of Terry V Ohio

If you know how to illustrate or animate - lmk / thought that would be dope --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/finnkers/message

Today, for episode 100, we have a special guest and will take a look back at Terry v. Ohio.

Episode 63: Terry v. OhioGuest: Christopher Hern In this episode, Dewhitt interviews one of his brightest HCC students ever, a super star, Christopher Hern. Chris is a Washington High School graduate, spent six (6) years in the United States Navy, was a member of the Submarine Force, has a 4.0 GPA, and this is his last class prior to earning his Associate of Arts Degree. Dewhitt and Chris discuss the following:  His career goalMajor or anticipated majorWhy he enrolled in the classTerry v. OhioStop and FriskDavid Floyd v. the City of New YorkCompared Mapp v. Ohio, Weeks v. U.S., and the David Floyd Case4th AmendmentHow to better race relationsRalph B. TynesReasonable SuspicionBlack Lives MatterWhite SupremacyLegalization of marijuanaFree community collegeIf our vote can impact the criminal justice systemWhat he'd like to see the Biden administration accomplishYou can listen to the JFA Podcast Show wherever you get your podcast or by clicking on one of the links below.https://dlbspodcast.buzzsprout.com  https://blog.feedspot.com/social_justice_podcasts/   https://peculiarbooks.org  Also if you are interested in exercise and being healthy check out the Top 20 Triathlon Podcasts.https://blog.feedspot.com/triathlon_podcasts/

Terry v. Ohio is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that was decided in 1968. As a result of the Terry case, police officers are permitted to stop you on the street and frisk you if they have reasonable suspicion that you are involved in criminal activity. Your host, Cedric Hopkins, breaks down the facts and legal rulings from the Terry case. You'll hear additional examples of cases where courts have decided Terry issues and how those fit into everyday life. Cedric will also explain how the Terry case applies to you today, and how you can best use the law from Terry to protect yourself if a police officer stops you on the street. For more content from Cedric on staying safe while interacting with the police, visit him on your favorite social media app: @the.people.v.podcast. Stay safe!

Police officers are expected to know the law like a lawyer. It starts with a firm grasp of the basics. In this episode, I break down the basics of the landmark decision Terry v. Ohio.Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/#tab-opinion-1947459See also - Ybarra v. Illinois, 444 U.S. 85 (1979) - https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/444/85/#tab-opinion-1953417Train like a lawyer. Find out more about my law enforcement courses - https://tacticalattorney.comWatch the Episode on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNJAahQLOH5uNinFMnQTMnASIGN UP FOR MY NEWSLETTER TO STAY UP ON CHANGES IN THE LAW: https://www.subscribepage.com/tacticalattorney_copyErik Scramlin is a former Chief Deputy District Attorney and owner of Tactical Legal Solutions, LLC. Courses and contact information available at https://tacticalattorney.comDISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice. This content and all of Tactical Attorney's content is for informational purposes only. You should contact your attorney to obtain legal advice with respect to any particular issue. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney client relationship of any kind.

In this archive episode, Dennis goes over Terry v. Ohio and gives tips on how to conduct a Pat Frisk correctly. Recorded on 04/23/2019.

In this archive episode, Dennis explains approaching parked motor vehicles and the laws around this subject. Recorded on 08/07/2017. State v . Butler 1994 - http://www.leagle.com/decision/1994371278NJSuper93_1362/STATE%20v.%20BUTLER Under both the United States and New Jersey constitutions, a police officer has the authority to detain individuals without a warrant, on less than probable cause. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 26-27, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Davis, supra, 104 N.J. at 502-504, 517 A.2d 859. And, in order to pass constitutional muster, the stop must be predicated upon specific and articulable suspicion that a person has been or is about to engage in criminal activity. United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 695, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 51, 99 S.Ct. 2637, 2640, 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979); Davis, supra, 104 N.J. at 504, 517 A.2d 859. The Court in Davis noted: A police officer charged with the duty of crime prevention and detection of the public safety must deal with a rich diversity of street encounters with citizens. In a given situation, even though a citizen's behavior does not reach the level of highly suspicious activities, the officer's experience may indicate that some investigation is in order. Depending on the circumstances, street interrogation may be most reasonable and proper. [Id. at 503, 517 A.2d 859]. The New Jersey Supreme Court has held that under a narrowly defined and controlled set of circumstances, investigatory stops and detentions are constitutionally permissible even though based on less than probable cause. In State v. Hall, 93 N.J. 552, 561, 461 A.2d 1155, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1008, 104 S.Ct. 526, 78 L.Ed.2d 709 (1983), the Court explained: Our reading of Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721, 89 S.Ct. 1394, 22 L.Ed.2d 676 (1969), convinces us that for certain detentions — those that do not entail significant intrusions upon individual privacy or freedom, are productive of reliable evidence, and can be effectuated without abuse, coercion or intimidation — no probable cause in the traditional sense is necessary in order to obtain the authorization of a judicial officer[.] We conclude that, under a narrowly defined set of circumstances, such detentions can be constitutionally permissible. Davis, 394 U.S. at 727-28, 89 S.Ct. at 1398, 22 L.Ed.2d at 681. Strictly limiting the circumstances under which such detentions take place insures that the restrictions upon individual privacy and freedom interests are minimized so that a showing of need upon less than traditional probable cause can be tolerated. See United States v. Place, supra, [462] U.S. [696] at [703], 103 S.Ct. [2637] at 2642 [77 L.Ed.2d 110 (1983)] (minimally intrusive detention can be supported on less than probable cause); Terry v. Ohio, supra, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1983) (permitting police to conduct stop and frisk upon less than probable cause); Michigan v. Long, [463] U.S. [1032], 103 S.Ct. 3469, 77 L.Ed.2d 1201 (1983) (permitting police to conduct protective search for weapons in passenger compartment of car upon less than probable cause); cf. Camara v. Municipal Court, 387 U.S. 523, 87 S.Ct. 1727, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967) (permitting search upon probable cause determined by administrative standards). In evaluating whether an officer has acted reasonably under the circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or `hunch,' but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience. Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. at 1883, 20 L.Ed.2d at 909. In other words, the test for reasonable suspicion is whether [b]ased upon the whole picture the detaining officer [had] a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity. State v. Thomas, 110 N.J. 673, 678, 542 A.2d 912 (1988) (quoting Cortez, supra,...

Marc Wasserman, along with his brother Craig, are big names in the cannabis law industry. Both practicing attorneys in California since 1996 and 1986, respectively, it wasn't until 2000 that their careers shifted to this new strain of law.   “My nephew, my brother's son, was showing a green thumb for cannabis and compassion for cancer patients he knew who needed it,” “He started out as a caregiver here in California, and so we knew we needed to learn all these laws to protect him. And so, over ten years, we had to represent him seven or eight different times for felonies. And every single case we were able to get dismissed.”    Even though California Proposition 215 had been passed in 1996, legalizing the use of medical marijuana, Marc saw that plenty of people, his nephew included, were still being arrested unlawfully in the state. Part of it, he says, has to do with confusion around ever-changing and evolving cannabis laws nationwide — just because something has become legal, he explains, doesn't mean a cop will necessarily know it has. Additionally, there's a subset of cops out there who just want to punish people — as well as specific laws with racist roots that make it easier for those cops to punish people of color, in particular. Terry V. Ohio, Marc says, is a perfect example of that.    “Sadly, I have to tell people, ‘You want to get in this business? Be ready to have handcuffs put on you at any time,” he adds.    Together, as Pot Brothers at Law, Marc and Craig have gained a considerable following, helping cannabis users navigate an often lopsided and intentionally confusing legal system. In this episode of “Good Dudes Grow,” Gary and Marc talk about the way the brothers are putting power in the people's hands, including through their trademarked script for folks who've been pulled over.    What You'll Learn: The 25 words Marc and Craig advise cannabis users to say if police question them How to maintain your rights, remedies, and defenses Why the brothers “don't give a s***” about Miranda Rights (and neither, they say, should you) And much more!   Favorite Quote: “We wanted to show people, ‘Hey, we're attorneys, we use cannabis, there's nothing wrong with it,' and start breaking that stigma.” — Marc Wasserman   Connect With Marc YouTube Instagram Facebook Pot Brothers at Law How to Get Involved: Gary Roberts is the founder and CEO of Pure Body Zen, a company based on creating and selling high-quality CBD products that heal mind and body alike. Gary considers hemp-based medicine a calling, and his organization, along with the world-class team that runs it, reflects his passion.   You can learn more about Pure Body Zen on their site, on LinkedIn, and Instagram.   If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to visit the show on Apple Podcasts and leave a rating and review! We love hearing from you!

This week's episode looks at Terry v. Ohio (1968), which deals with a current hot issue: "stop and frisk." In this case, John Terry, Richard Chilton, and Carl Katz were stopped and frisked by Det. Martin McFadden after he observed them behaving in a suspicious manner. During the frisk, McFadden discovered concealed weapons on both Terry and Chilton. Both men were charged with having a concealed and their attorney, former Congressman Louis Stokes, filed a motion to suppress the weapon. He argued that McFadden subjected Terry and Chilton to an unlawful search. The case made its way to the high court and the result continues to impact policing to the present day. Resources: Oral Argument: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 Please be sure to subscribe to the podcast to make sure you never miss an episode! You can also follow me at my blog palookesworld.com FOLLOW ME: Twitter: @plaookesworld Instagram: @palookesworld www.palookesworld.com

In this podcast, the panelists discuss the landmark decision of Terry v. Ohio, the 4th Amendment, and Stop and Frisk.   

Listeners and co-hosts alike have been wanting Andrew to do a breakdown of the situation in Portland. There are big questions like, for example, how? and WTF? and what can anyone do? Andrew answers these and gives us the timeline of what's led to the Trump administration sending out paramilitary troops to abduct people in unmarked vans, like a totally non-fascist president would do. Before that, we talk about the gun wielding couple from St. Louis who threatened BLM protestors, and how they're totally not going to face any justice for their undeniable crimes because they are white. Links: OA307: The Census Fight Is Not Over, St. Louis lawyers Mark and Patricia McCloskey, 2005 Missouri Revised Statutes - § 571.030. — Unlawful use of weapons, St. Louis Gun Couple Charged, MO Gov Vows To Pardon Gun Couple, Supreme Court Rules - Rule 5 - Rules Governing the Missouri Bar, Acting Secretary Wolf Condemns Violence In Portland, Portland Fence To Come Down, Portland City Council votes to defund police by $15 million, Executive Order on Protecting American Monuments, Federal Officers Deployed in Portland Didn't Have Proper Training, Man Shot in Face with Rubber Bullet, Portland Roadside Abduction, Ocasio-Cortez to introduce bill requiring federal officers to identify themselves, Terry v. Ohio, 8 USC 1357, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights, Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, In re Neagle, 18 USC 242

On the fifth episode of 5-4, Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon), and Michael (@_FleerUltra) talk about the 1968 ruling by the Warren Court that that paved the way for stop-and-frisk laws around the country.

In this episode, Professor Andrea Armstrong, Law Visiting Committee Distinguished Professor of Law at Loyola University New Orleans College of Law explains how to evaluate the constitutionality of a stop and a frisk. Professor Armstrong centers her discussion on Terry v. Ohio and provides an essential understanding of both the law and its background.Some key takeaways are...1. Police may not detain persons absent reasonable suspicion.2. Courts define reasonable suspicion as specific and articulable facts from which suspicion can be made - something between a gut hunch and probable cause3. Police may frisk someone if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed or dangerous.About our guest...Professor Armstrong is a Professor of Law at Loyola University New Orleans, College of Law. She is a leading national expert on prison and jail conditions and is certified by the U.S. Department of Justice as a Prison Rape Elimination Act auditor. Her research focuses on the constitutional dimensions of prisons and jails, specifically prison labor practices, the intersection of race and conditions of incarceration, and public oversight of detention facilities. She teaches in the related fields of constitutional law, criminal law, race and the law, and constitutional criminal procedure. Andrea Armstrong is co-chair of the Community Advisory Group for the New Orleans MacArthur Safety and Justice Challenge and a founding board member of the Promise of Justice Initiative, a non-profit organization focused on death penalty abolition and prison conditions. Professor Armstrong is a graduate of Yale Law School, the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, where she completed her M.P.A. in International Relations, and New York University.As always, if you have any suggestions for an episode topic, please let us know! You can email us at leslie@lawtofact.com or tweet to @lawtofact. Don’t forget to follow us on Twitter and Instagram (@lawtofact) and to like us on FaceBook! And finally, your ratings and reviews matter! Please leave us a review on iTunes. Want to stay updated on all things Law to Fact? Join our mailing list by visiting us at www.lawtofact.com. This episode is sponsored by Kaplan Bar Review. Getting ready for the bar exam means you’ll need to choose the study program that’s right for you. Kaplan Bar Review will get you ready to take on test day with confidence by offering $100 off live and on-demand Bar Review with offer code Leslie100. Visit kaplanbarreview.com today to sign up.

Fundamentals of the 4th Amendment, Episode 10: Terry v. Ohio is an important case in the understanding of the Fourth Amendment.  One of that case's holdings was the Supreme Court's approval of the Terry stop.  Another, discussed here, is what to do with a person that the officer reasonably suspects is armed and dangerous.  What is a frisk, and what does it entail?  Kenny Anderson and John Besselman explain.

The 1968 Supreme Court Decision in Terry v. Ohio held that a person’s Fourth Amendment rights are not violated when a police officer stops a subject and frisks him as long as the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed. However, some civil rights organizations contend that a number of agencies took advantage of this ruling to inappropriately stop and frisk people without being able to articulate that reasonable suspicion. In this podcast segment, Jim and Doug discuss the fact that officers must be able to report in detail (in a narrative form, not just check boxes) what led them to stop and frisk an individual.

In Episode 4, David Breaks down the intricacies of the “stop & frisk” law, which stems from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Terry v. Ohio.  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is NOT violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous.” ENJOY!

Critics of the so-called “Stop and Frisk” have effectively ended the practice in places like New York City. But the fact is that when an officer conducts a field interview or makes contact with an individual who they reasonably suspect to possess a weapon, conducing that search is an officer safety issue. The tactic has been held to be Constitutional in the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, which was based on a stop conducted by Cleveland Police Department Detective Martin McFadden. Jim and Doug discuss how the tactic is used, and consider ways to better educate the public that it’s not a matter of police arbitrarily stopping people on the street, but based on the officer’s articulable observations.

Can't get enough Terry v. Ohio? Love being frisked? Check out this weeks episode!