What I Know (K) What I Want to Know (W) What I Learned (L)

I am a part of gen how has the republic act the republic act 1425 has made the
z and I’m currently 1425 affected the study of Jose Rizal’s works mandatory
studying education system in the in all public and private schools,
criminology, so we Philippines for my colleges, and universities in the
are required to generation? Philippines, including for students of my
study the life, works generation.
and writings of Jose
Rizal.

Jose Rizal is a How has the study of Jose
national hero of Rizal's works influenced
the Philippines. the development of the
Philippines and the people
in it?
The study of Jose Rizal's works has
contributed to the promotion of
nationalism, historical and cultural
awareness, and the development of
critical thinking among Filipinos.

The Republic Act How has the The implementation of the Rizal Law
1425 was implementation of the Rizal has ensured that students in the
implemented to Law impacted the quality of Philippines are exposed to a broader
include the study education in the range of historical and cultural
of Jose Rizal's Philippines? perspectives, which has improved the
works in the quality of education in the country.
curriculum.

The study of Jose How has the study of Jose The study of Jose Rizal's works has
Rizal's works Rizal's works affected my helped me gain a deeper appreciation
promotes personal development as a for my country's history, culture, and
nationalism and a Filipino student? heritage, and has inspired me to be
deeper more involved in promoting the values
understanding of of Filipino nationalism and patriotism.
Philippine history
and culture.

The Republic Act What were the challenges Senator Recto faced opposition from
1425 was faced by Senator Recto in some sectors who were against the
authored by proposing and inclusion of Rizal's works in the
Senator Claro M. implementing the Rizal curriculum, but he persisted and
Recto Law? eventually succeeded in making the law
a reality.

Here is a completed outline for the report on the facts of the case and evolution
of the Terry doctrine of custodial rights:
R1

I. Introduction

A. Overview of the topic

Doctrine - a stated principle of government policy.

The Terry doctrine of custodial rights is a landmark legal decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States that established the principle of "stop and frisk." This
doctrine allows law enforcement officers to temporarily detain, and search
individuals suspected of criminal activity if they have reasonable suspicion.

B. Purpose of the report

The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview of the facts of

the Terry v. Ohio case and the evolution of the Terry doctrine over time. The
report will explain the legal principles involved in the case, how the doctrine has
been applied in subsequent cases, and the significance of the doctrine in
criminology.

C. Background on the Terry doctrine and its relevance to criminology

The Terry doctrine is a crucial aspect of modern law enforcement and has far-
reaching implications for the protection of civil rights and individual freedoms. As
a criminology student, it is important to understand the legal basis and evolution
of the Terry doctrine in order to better understand the criminal justice system and
the role of law enforcement.

The "stop and frisk" concept is also known by several other names, including:

1. Stop and Search - This is a common term used in many countries, including
the United Kingdom, to describe a similar type of police action.
2. Terry Stop - This term is used in reference to the landmark U.S. Supreme
Court case, Terry v. Ohio, which first established the legal basis for stop and
frisk.
3. Street Stop - This term is often used to describe the practice of stopping
and searching individuals on the street without a warrant.
4. Stop and Question - This term is sometimes used to describe the practice
of stopping and questioning individuals without a warrant.
 5. Stop, Question, and Frisk - This term is used to describe the practice of
stopping individuals, questioning them, and conducting a limited search of
their person for weapons or other illegal items.

Regardless of the name used, the concept of stop and frisk refers to a police
practice in which individuals are briefly stopped, questioned, and searched for
weapons or other illegal items. The legal basis for this practice is established by
the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and various state and federal
laws.

R2

II. Background Information

A. Historical context of the Terry case

The Terry v. Ohio case was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in
1968. The case involved Cleveland police officer Martin McFadden who, while on
patrol, observed two men acting suspiciously. On October 31, 1963, police officer
Martin McFadden was on duty in downtown Cleveland, Ohio, when he noticed
two men standing on a street corner. One of the men, John W. Terry, walked
down the street, looked through a certain store window, then continued on
before turning around and returning to where he started, stopping on his way
back to look in the store window again. The other man, Richard Chilton, repeated
Terry's movements. Officer McFadden approached the men, identified himself as
a police officer, and conducted a pat-down search, which revealed that one of the
men was carrying a weapon.

B. Key legal issues involved in the case

the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial part of the
Bill of Rights and provides important protections for individual rights and
freedoms. The Fourth Amendment states:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized."

In simple terms, the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable

searches and seizures by the government, including law enforcement agencies.
This means that the government must have a good reason, or "probable cause,"
to search a person or place, and must obtain a warrant in order to do so. The
warrant must be issued by a judge and must specifically describe what is to be
searched and seized.

The key legal issue in the Terry v. Ohio case was whether the Fourth Amendment
protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated by Officer
McFadden's actions. The case was a landmark decision that established the
principle of "stop and frisk" and clarified the extent to which law enforcement
officers could detain and search individuals suspected of criminal activity.

A stop-and-frisk refers to a brief non-intrusive police stop of a suspect. The

Fourth Amendment requires that before stopping the suspect, the police must
have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be
committed by the suspect.

C. Overview of the evolution of the Terry doctrine over time

Since the Terry v. Ohio case, the Terry doctrine has been applied and interpreted
in numerous cases, leading to its evolution over time. The doctrine has been
modified and expanded to include circumstances such as drug interdiction,
consent searches, and searches of automobiles.

R3

III. Facts of the Terry v. Ohio Case

A. The events leading up to the arrest

The events leading up to the arrest in the Terry v. Ohio case began when
Cleveland police officer Martin McFadden observed two men, John W. Terry and
Richard Chilton, acting suspiciously in front of a store.

B. The arrest itself

Officer McFadden approached the men, identified himself as a police officer, and
conducted a pat-down search, which revealed that one of the men, John W. Terry,
was carrying a weapon. Officer McFadden then arrested Terry and Chilton and
charged them with carrying a concealed weapon.

C. Subsequent legal proceedings

The subsequent legal proceedings in the Terry v. Ohio case involved the Ohio
Supreme Court upholding the arrest, but the case was later appealed to the
Supreme Court of the United States.

D. Key arguments made by both the prosecution and defense

The key arguments made by the prosecution in the Terry v. Ohio case were that
Officer McFadden's actions were reasonable and necessary in order to protect
himself and others. The defense argued that the arrest was a violation of Terry's
Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

E. Outcome of the case

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of the prosecution,
establishing the principle of "stop and frisk" and upholding the validity of the
arrest. The court found that Officer McFadden's actions were reasonable and
necessary in order to protect himself and others, and that the temporary
detention and search of Terry did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

R4

IV. Evolution of the Terry Doctrine Over Time

A. Expansion of the doctrine to include other circumstances

Since the Terry v. Ohio case, the Terry doctrine has been expanded to include
circumstances such as drug interdiction, consent searches, and searches of
automobiles.

B. Key court decisions that have modified and clarified the doctrine.

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) - expanded the doctrine to include vehicle

stops and searches.

United States v. Mendenhall (1980) - established the principle of "free and

voluntary consent" as a basis for searches.

Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) - established that flight from the police can provide
reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop.

C. The impact of the evolution of the Terry doctrine on criminology and law
enforcement

The evolution of the Terry doctrine has had a significant impact on criminology
and law enforcement, affecting the way that law enforcement officers conduct
investigations and interact with the public. The doctrine has also been the subject
of intense debate and criticism, with some arguing that it has been used to justify
racial profiling and the violation of civil rights.

R1

V. Conclusion

A. Summary of the key points

This report has provided a comprehensive overview of the facts of the Terry v.
Ohio case and the evolution of the Terry doctrine over time. The report has
explained the legal principles involved in the case, how the doctrine has been
applied and modified in subsequent cases, and the impact of the doctrine on
criminology and law enforcement.

R2

B. Significance of the Terry doctrine in criminology

The Terry doctrine is a significant aspect of modern law enforcement and has far-
reaching implications for the protection of civil rights and individual freedoms. As
a criminology student, it is important to understand the legal basis and evolution
of the Terry doctrine in order to better understand the criminal justice system and
the role of law enforcement.

R3

C. Final thoughts

The Terry v. Ohio case and the evolution of the Terry doctrine over time highlight
the complex interplay between the protection of individual rights and the need
for effective law enforcement. The doctrine continues to be the subject of
ongoing debate and legal challenges, and its impact on criminology and law
enforcement will continue to evolve in the coming years.

R1 to 4

Terry doctrine has been used in several cases in the Philippines. Here are a
few examples:

1. People v. Aminnudin (2001) - The Supreme Court of the Philippines held

that a warrantless arrest under the Terry doctrine was justified in this case.
The police had received information that the suspect was carrying illegal
drugs and, after stopping and frisking him, they found shabu in his
possession.

2. People v. Galit (2004) - In this case, the Supreme Court of the Philippines
upheld the validity of a warrantless search under the Terry doctrine. The
police had received information that the suspect was carrying illegal drugs
and, after stopping and frisking him, they found shabu in his possession.
 3. People v. Posadas (2010) - The Supreme Court of the Philippines held that
a warrantless search under the Terry doctrine was valid in this case. The
police had received information that the suspect was carrying illegal drugs
and, after stopping and frisking him, they found shabu in his possession.

4. People v. De la Cruz (2010) - In this case, the Supreme Court of the

Philippines upheld the validity of a warrantless arrest under the Terry
doctrine. The police had received information that the suspect was
involved in a robbery and, after stopping and frisking him, they found
stolen goods in his possession.

These cases demonstrate the application of the Terry doctrine in the Philippines
and show how it can be used to justify warrantless searches and arrests in certain
circumstances.