People vs Ohio

Summary: investigation had to make a quick decision

as how to protect himself and others from
An officer may perform search possible danger and took limited steps to do
and seizures even without probable so. McFadden confined his search strictly to
cause when the officer believes that the what was minimally necessary to learn
person may be armed and dangerous. whether the men were armed and to disarm
them once he discovered the weapons.
Facts:
Such search was reasonable under the
Cleveland Officer Martin McFadden Fourth Amendment and any weapons
said that while patrolling in downtown seized may properly be introduced in
Cleveland in the afternoon of October 31, evidenced against the person from whom
1913, his attention was attracted by two they were taken.
men, Chilton and Terry standing on the
corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue.
McFadden became suspicious when the
men repeatedly looked in a store window.
The officer believed that the Petitioner and
the other men were “casing” a store for a
potential robbery. McFadden decided to
approach the men for further investigation
and given the nature of the behavior the
officer decided to perform a quick search of
the men before questioning. A quick frisking
of the petitioner produced a concealed
weapon and the Petitioner was charged with
carrying a concealed weapon.
Issue:
Whether or not a search for weapon
without probable cause for arrest is an
unreasonable search under the Fourth
Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
Held:
Judgment affirmed
Ratio:
The Supreme Court of the United
States held that it was a reasonable search
when McFadden performed quick seizure
and a limited search for weapons on a
person and he reasonably believed could be
armed. The record evidences the tempered
act of a policeman who in the course of an