a- Terry and two other men were searched by a police officer in plain clothes. The officer stopped and frisked the men, finding a concealed weapon on Terry. There was two unauthorized weapons on them. Terry was sentenced to three years in jail. 

b- Was the search and seizure in violation of the 4th amendment?

c- 8-1

d- The court held that the search and seizure was constitutional. They said that it as reasonable under the 4th amendment, and the weapons seized could be used again terry. the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." 

e- The other judge, Douglas, thought the officer had simply acted on a "hunch", and was not justified to search the men. 

f- It shows that officers have the right to search suspicious behavior. For example, if you are dressed in a way or behaving in a way that makes the officers believe you are a threat to their or someone else's behavior, they are allowed to search and seize you. It also means that people have to understand and cooperate with the police because they do have reasons for searching you.

2- Thornton v U.S

a- Marcus Thornton was stopped after getting out of his vehicle by a police officer who had noticed that the license plate on Thornton's Lincoln Town Car belonged to a Chevy two-door car. The officer then searched his car, asking him. During the search he found two bags of drugs and a gun. Thornton then said that the gun should be dismissed as evidence because it was found in an unconstitutional search. He said that it did not fall within the "search incident to arrest." 

b- Under the "search incident to arrest" exception to the Fourth Amendment, may police search the vehicle of a person they have arrested if they did not make contact with him until after he left the vehicle?

c- 7-2

d- the Court ruled that forcing officers to decide whether a suspect had noticed them before exiting the car, would be too subjective and leave officers uncertain of whether they could perform searches. They also said the weapon was close to the exit, therefor easily accessed, providing the same reason to search. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in the majority opinion, wrote, "Once an officer determines there is probable cause to make an arrest, it is reasonable to allow officers to ensure their safety and to preserve evidence by searching the entire passenger compartment."

e- They only included the condition that "with the understanding that only if he had could the car be searched", not saying the other opinions.

f- it allows law enforcement the right to search the vehicle of a person they have arrested if they did not make contact with him until after he left the vehicle. Therefore, gives more freedom for them to search and find the evidence.

3- Mapp v Ohio

a- Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials. although, it was after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.

b- Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?

c- 6-3

d- the decision was very split, with most judges having many different opinions. They came to, Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.

e- Justice Stewart concurred in the judgment but agreed fully with Part I of Justice Harlan's dissent and expressed no view as to the merits of the constitutional issue. Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker, write a dissenting opinion. 

f- Affected people and law enforcement by making evidence not usable that is found in a not authorized search and seizure. It also made it to where law enforcement has to be careful how they obtain evidence to make it usable in court. 

4- Miranda v. Arizona 

a- In four different cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques. They each did not know their 5th amendment rights. Miranda was interrogated for 2 hours, without a lawyer, She then confessed and the officers had a written confession from her. 

b- Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?

c-5-4

d- the decision was the Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent. They also have the right to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody. Evidence obtained as a result of interrogation was not to be used against a defendant at trial unless the prosecution demonstrated the warnings were given.

e- Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties.

f- Law enforcement now has to give the Miranda warning when they make an arrest or are interrogating someone. People also now have the right to not say anything and to get a lawyer before answering any questions.