Jump to content
The Education Forum

Terry vs Ohio


Recommended Posts

While at a motel, I observed a cop of the Cedar Rapids Iowa Police force follow a 20 year old male guest back from a convienience store after the convienience store clerk ( supposedly ) called the police because the kid bought a single swisher sweet cigar which are used to smoke pot in.

The kid had no odor of alchohol or pot but the officer hasseled the kid for sometime then waited, then followed to his room to smell for drugs.

If you would talk to the young man, whom I have his phone number, he would hate me! Why because at the time , I felt it prudent to give him some fatherly advice which was to exit the situation and head on up to his room. The cop, on the other hand, kept pushing this young man so much that the nice mannered kid was getting understandably frustrated and angry. I remembered when I was the kids age, and at 20, when I was completely in the right, I would have done what that young man was about to do.

That is; to tell that Cedar Rapids Iowa street cop that you are stalking, hasselling and depriving me of my rights. That you have no probable cause since you can see that I am not on drugs or even alchohol, and that I just might want to smoke a single Swisher Sweet. But if you think otherwise, that is too bad because you can not , as a law profressional, think otherwise , if you are following the Bill of Rights.

http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm

The kid who was the type who had a hard time explaining or defending himself, tried his best but finally got frustrated.

Did the officer have the right to follow and hassle him?

The local police referred me to Terry vs Ohio. Any opinions on this?

Article the sixth [Amendment IV]

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 my opinion , the Cedar Rapids Iowa Police Officer violated this young man's 6th ( the spokesman at the Cedar Rapids Police Department thought it was the 5th) amendment rights at the point that he found no drugs on him and did not let it go. Let's just say he had a reason ( and a lot of time) to follow him back to his hotel, but he went too far after there was no probable cause when the officer met the "suspect" in person and did not smell anything or even feel that the man was impaired. ( the cop admitted that to the young man in front of me)

It was obvious to me, a layman, that he provoked the kid and went beyond the pale.

Edited by Peter McGuire
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...