My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available! Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680 Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680 Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023 Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495 Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I’ve noticed a lot of New York law being important. Cardozo being one of the most famous judges despite spending most of his career in New York courts.
The problem isn't in court's decision,but in the fact that term "reasonable suspicion" could be used for anything and PDs wouldn't be accountable if they did it wrong.
@@iammrbeat Though, as the court has just said, implications aren't always it's business, if the law or constitution needs amending that's up to Congress and the States.
Totally agree and my biggest issue with stop and search. In the UK, I was stopped for suspected drug possession (at the time, dressed with long hair and a bandana - in other words, like a hippy) on the basis of "they could smell weed off me" and you obviously cannot disprove scent. To make matters worse, I was with my girlfriend who was not searched, nor did I want to draw attention to her because I didn't want to see her being treated the same way. It was a completely discriminatory practice. If they thought I had drugs, surely anyone by association would also be suspicious and you'd also search them? Worst of all, it further causes that disconnect between police and communities - and that's coming from a non-threatening working class white guy. Must be a lot worse for minorities.
@@ML-ir5vo the police saying they smell wees is what they use to search. 2 times i got pulled over and my car search "because they smell weed. Nothing was found and bsb i was let go. If nothing is found they let u go, if u got drugs then it will look like a good search
Thanks for continuing to make the Supreme Court Briefs series. It's great to hear about these past cases that I would otherwise probably never hear about. Your videos are a perfect balance of historical context, case summary, and outcome. Keep them coming please.
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
If they are… I would find a new person to listen to. This gentleman got this entire case wrong from beginning to end and he even made things up that aren’t true
The Terry decision was based on the officer seeing Terry engaging in suspicious behavior. Stopping just anyone walking down the street is not what was intended at all. In fact, stopping people for no reason is a violation of the 4th amendment.
It depends on what you mean by “stopping anyone walking down the street”. The police can approach anyone else in public just as other citizens may approach others to ask them questions or to give them information. The issue is whether the individual is free to go or not. In Terry v. Ohio, Terry and the two others weren’t detained until Officer McFadden physically seized them and searched their outer clothing.
@@ipsurvivor An officer in uniform is not like a regular citizen. His very presence creates an atmosphere of threat and intimidation because he has the legal power to arrest people. And cops have even killed innocent people. Officers should only stop someone when they have evidence the person was part of a crime. Stopping anyone for any other reason is a stressful intrusion. What's more, because officers are under orders to make arrests, they look for any indication of criminal activity and start to fish with questions. They do that even when they have no reason to think the individual they're talking to did anything illegal. They frequently make false arrests, but far more often than that, they take up peoples' precious time and bring them stress. They habitually stop people with the hope of finding unknown criminality, and that needs to stop. As I said in my O.P., the Terry Decision was based on the officer actually observing the person doing something suspicious before stopping him.
@@ipsurvivor No. you're wrong. And it's not even close to how incorrect you are. th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html. LEARN the truth -- not the lies from this fraud.
@@deezynar So..... what's your point? If the seizure is made based on no suspicion, then it's a bad stop. And what ever "stuff" the cop finds on the guy will be thrown out.
@@monkberrymoon4042 My point has been clearly explained. Cops should not stop or speak to anyone if they don't have evidence that the person committed a crime.
I really like the way you revealed that Terry and Chilton were black and that Katz was white. Some say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this is a prefect example. As we all know, searching the two black men and not the white man as well is VERY """reasonable""" and warrants search and seizure. I look forward to the next Supreme Court Briefs!
Some would say that those who choose to believe some TH-cam guy with a questionable history of honesty, without looking into things for themselves, are suckers
Do you agree with the Court in this case? Which Supreme Court case should I cover next for this series? Also, don't forget to download Newsvoice for free here to support my channel: newsvoice.com/mrbeat
I think there’s a difference between just ‘frisking’ someone who seems suspicious and pressing their head down on the hood of a car. If the police was less aggressive then they’d probably have more people defending the Stop-and-Frisk policy instead of fighting to abolish it
Freaking Bloomberg. I thought it was funny when Trump criticized Bloomberg for stop-and-frisk, and then a week later is all of sudden for stop-and-frisk again.
I think an important part of this case is the suspects suspicious behavior before the stop and frisk. If it was done today the police would need video of the behavior before they could stop and frisk, not an insurmountable requirement with today's technology.
There is no holding by any court , that I’m aware of, that requires video verification of suspicious activity prior to being able to perform a Terry Stop and/or a Terry frisk. Video has certainly been used to help establish that reasonable articulable suspicion was present at the time of many police encounters...but I haven’t seen where it is now required. Video has also had a huge impact on civil litigation (See Scott v. Harris, Supreme Court 2007) but there is still litigation that lacks video evidence. The credibility of witnesses is still what it has been for a long time.
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Do not rely of the fantasy that “today” we have more technology to prove the age old problem. That would be unwise and dismiss 99.9% of injustices worldwide.
I know you said this series doesn't get as many views as other videos, but it is one of my favourite types of video you make you do so keep everything up!
These may not do as well as your other videos but oh man are they important. If anyone wants to know about the evolution of our “rights” as citizens this is where to go.
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Rocco -- he creates videos for LIKES and Views -- he starts off by lying and it never stop. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
John Terry went on to slip and miss a penalty in the 2008 UCL final that costed Chelsea their first Champions League Trophy and handed it to Manchester United. Its a small world.
President During this time: Lyndon B. Johnson Chief Justice: Earl Warren Argued December 12, 1967 Decided June 10, 1968 Case Duration: 181 Days Decision: 8-1 in favor of Ohio
I’m not a fan of stop-and-frisk, but I’m curious on what an alternate solution could be to it since there are situations where people actually look suspicious
Solution? It seems to me police are creating problems, as stop-and-frisk does NOT reduce crime. The alternative would be to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Things aren't always what they seem, especially when everyone has prejudice.
@@iammrbeat how can you be sure it doesn't reduces crime without explaining a negative? It's been around since the 60's. I'd bet it does reduce crime. It at least catches bad guys after a crime. Terry stops can happen, before, during and after a crime.
@@Truths_Sayer Dude -- you just don't know and this guy's video didn't help with all the lies. I've downloaded it and Ill be coming after him for his lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I've been a lawyer for, like, 30 years, and I've never heard anyone make this argument against Terry before. You really think that a policeman that investigates a suspicious situation is, well, asking for trouble? I mean, if you believe that police shouldn't exist, I guess that makes sense. But as long as we have them, don't you think they should be allowed to "confront" people that potentially doing something criminal?
Emmerson -- this video is a fabrication. It's not the truth. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
You'll flunk if you write down almost anything this guy said. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Wow, so relevant with regards to the events that happened after George Floyd. Even without his brutal death, this sort of thing is incredibly touchy to people who have that sort of thing happen to them more often than others. Small wonder they got so mad after George Floyd was killed
@@iammrbeat the most significant time prior to today, where there was so much pushback after something divisive, as far as I can tell, was during 1968. The Tet Offensive during Vietnam rocked both the population (leading to people taking to the streets) and the Administration of Lyndon Johnson (people protested outside the White House chanting "hey, hey LBJ, How many kids [did] you kill today?"), ultimately leading him to not seek re-election. But even after that of course, there were still a huge amount of division, protests and pushback, particularly during the Democratic convention in Chicago (as mentioned in your superb series on Presidential Elections in US history Matt :)) with confrontations between the police and the protestors. It's certainly up there with the 2000 and 2016 campaigns in terms of how divided people seemed to be (of course, they're also the two most recent times the winner of the election lost the popular vote)
It's also very touchy to people to whom the Terry frisk was done improperly, like for example, the officer feels your wallet and he knows it's a wallet and picks your pocket anyway. (Brownback v King)
@johnthompson2965 kneeling directly on the neck of someone who was already restrained to the point where the person under arrest dies? That's not a valid excuse for a police officer to use the "Reasonably Scared Cop" Rule. What threat can someone already cuffed and on the ground pose to a police officer? That's when the police can be judged (by the general public at least) to go from Objective Reasonableness to Subjective Reasonableness, in other words, police, like the one who murdered George Floyd in May 2020 and other black people who died in Police Custody, can be seemed to use that ruling as an excuse for excessive force
I think it's okay for the police to conduct a stop-and-frisk if they have a reasonable suspicious that a crime is to imminently committed. So imminent that a warrant could not be requested in time
I'd like to agree with you in principle, but the amount of times cops catch an imminent crime before it happens without a warrant is incredibly rare lol
@@iammrbeat a slippery slope yes but eliminating it would be backwards. How about cops on the way to a serious domestic assault or another serious crime and someone is running away? Shouldn't they be stopped? The list goes on and on. I think courts after the fact determining what is reasonable is really the best solution on a case by case basis.
@@Truths_Sayer Stop and frisk is COMPLETELY backwards. It doesn't make anyone safer and is used as a tool to strike fear into minority communities. You shouldn't need to wait for police to abuse their power to act on it (Ignoring the fact that the police abuse their power with no consequences constantly)
And you still don't -- this video is completely false at every level and lies at a lot of place. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
You forgot the most important part: The police have a limited amount of time and scope to hold someone under reasonable suspicion. In Terry's case, had he not been carrying a weapon, the detective would have - say - 20 minutes at most. If his suspicions were dispelled, he would have to let the men go. If during those 20 minutes, he finds probable cause to believe that the men were conspiring to commit a robbery, the detective could escalate the Terry stop to an arrest. Otherwise, the detective has to let the men go; however, the detective may continue the investigation and - if he then develops probable cause against the men - he may obtain an arrest warrant.
Hello i have a similiar issue where i was at a specific location upon leaveing the establishment i was harrased stop by an officer where he did a stop and frisk tempor detaining me asking me questions where i refused to in a disrespectful manner and resistid w out violence under no circiumstances i was involded in a crime neither about to comit one he later stated there were looking for a subject armed with a rifle matching my description is this totally legal or illegal i have trial next month and im lookong to have my attroney drop these charges againestme
These videos might not be as popular, but they're extremely important to produce. Thank you for continuing to release solid content, especially related to hot topics like the powers of the police. I, for one, love Supreme Court Briefs
It's the first step on the slippery slope to a totalitarian police state. Clarence Thomas's opinion for the Court in Brownback v King stating that the district court was correct in its judgement on James King's lawsuit is the latest. The implications are: 1) Totality of circumstances is no longer necessary for RAS 2) Undercover police don't have to tell you who they are even if they come off as impersonators and you ask them to identify themselves. 3) Police can pick your pocket during a Terry search no matter what because "artfully concealed weapons" 4) Trying to escape and attempting to flee a criminal act against you by unknown officers is "resisting arrest" 5) Biting an unknown officer because he was actively choking you is "assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm" 6) Flailing your arms in an attempt to escape a perceived kidnapping and a battery because the first officer is pounding you in the face and head and the other officer put a handcuff on one of your wrists is "felonious assault with a dangerous weapon" 7) Items 4) 5) and 6) are each probable cause to arrest you. Never mind the obvious self-defense and entrapment!
The SCOTUS ruled that NY's stop and frisk program was illegal under the 4th Amendment. NY said they were going to continue doing it anyway (or at least until they found another way of doing it).
Mr Beat I have spent the afternoon trying to determine how my representative in the US house of representatives voted on a measure voted July 1,2020 on a 45-11 vote to continue to keep troops in Afghanistan I have looked on the Congressional Record website and it has not been helpful perhaps you could teach your viewers how to navigate this site and discover how their representative voted on particular measures? I think quite a few citizens need this refresher.
@@EliFord173 Mr Beat clearly is ignoring the fact a black justice supported it so he can claim systemic racism. I don’t think a black justice and former NAACP lawyer would have supported this decision if it was racist. Also, at the end of the video he points out black residents were more likely to be frisked in NYC by police despite being a smaller portion of the population. But he conveniently leaves out the fact black New Yorkers are more likely to commit crimes. If he were more unbiased in his attempt to educate people he would have explained these details.
@@caseclosed9342 That's only because you have no clue about history or what you're writing now. You just don't know. Don't be offended -- you don't know and you're guessing. Very sad -- this video is lies and fabrications. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Good Job Eli -- Yes. the whole video is fraud. Thurgood had JUST gotten on the court in 1967 ... Earl Warren had been President of the Free Mason's and Black Folks were JUST getting rights-- Thurgood was told his place was to vote as Earl told him. That changed over the years -- and he just dissented and did zero good. Ifyou listen to the Oral Arugments-- you'll hear Thurgood Tear McFadden to Shreds! Then-- Earl makes him vote for Terry Laws. MUCH like the BMA (Black Med Assoc) vote FOR Tuskegee to continue --- the AMA (American Medical Assoc) -- I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
59% is still way too high not to include some systemic racism, but I will point out that the percentage of criminals of minority races do often significantly exceed their percentage of the general population just because they're more likely to grow up in poverty and/or bad neighborhoods
Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable, articuable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed. The "reasonable" part of it is supposed to be based on experience in law enforcement. Would another officer who is objective also be suspicious of the situation? If so, the suspicion is reasonable. The articuable factor is also very important. It is extremely important that an officer can articulate why they believe the individual or situation to be suspicious. In short, if an officer is going to stop someone based on reasonable suspicion, they better be able to explain to a judge or attorney why they stopped them.
Learn the truth - this vid is completely false. Very sad -- this video is lies and fabrications. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Not sure if you're still doing this series or are taking suggestions from TH-cam comments, but you think you could do a video on Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia?
kinda silly to say the police has more authority than a magistrate to execute searches, when a police officer can personally observe crimes and magistrates can't, and magistrates' jobs involves lots of subjectivity in decisionmaking as well.
Just had my truck seized and they are saying its set for forfeiture. Even though the fines are way less than the value of the truck. They state it was involved in the crime even though it wasn't. 7 other cases similar they did not take the vehicle but they did with mine because it is paid for. Doesn't the 8th Amendment protect me from this type of government theft?
I believe the court ruled properly as a single officer who approached three men, at night who he believed to have been casing a store. If those men decided to gun down the officer this case law probably would have never came true. He had reasonable suspicion which became probable. Judges are not on scene and face the dangers that officers face which is why the frisk is necessary if the officer is lawfully there.
I'm so sorry to read this -- he made it up. It's not true. Terry v Ohio is my career. Sad he misled and lied to so many people Compare the truth to his lies: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
And that's how Terry versus Ohio violates the 4th amendment because it changes persons in the 4th amendment to officer safety and it changes probable cause to reasonable articulate suspicion which violates the Fourth amendment just because our officer is suspicious of you do not give him the right to put his hands on you until you committed a crime or violated some kind of penal code like the Fourth amendment says it's the right of the people to be secure in their person's papers houses in effect against unreasonable searches and seizures a warrant shall not be issued but only upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seen supported by all the affirmation now where does it say in the 4th amendment that a cop has the right to walk up to you because he's suspicious of you and start touching you like he's sexually assaulting you when all he has is suspicion of you because that's what they're doing they can use that indiscriminately against anybody that that police officer don't like the way that he looks the way that he or she walks that's not specifics on how reasonable suspicion can be used they got to be actual facts for Blue line terrace to sexually assault you because that is unwanted touching by a complete stranger and you don't know this complete stranger mental state
I don't like unjustified stop and frisks. One time I got one of these for an hour long just after I left work. I feel when a cop does one of these in a truly unjustified manner and finds nothing they should be given mandatory life in prison.
What about the ruling in Brown v Texas = Mere suspicion cannot be a reason to detain. Also, the Terry stop has turn into a stop and search not for weapons, but for an ID or to detain/arrest cameramen who are filming police activity and seize their cameras. A clear breach of their rights, per Robbins v City of Des Moines. Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's actions in filming the entrance to the police station and engaging in confrontational behaviour went beyond any constitutionally protected recording activity; defendants' actions, when combined with the defendant police officers' knowledge of vehicles being vandalized and stolen in the area and their personal knowledge that a previous filming incident led to the murder of two officers, could cause an objectively reasonable person in the officers' position to suspect plaintiff was up to more than simply recording police; the court cannot say the officers' conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, nor in violation of the First Amendment; defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the Terry stop they made because they had at least arguable reasonable suspicion given their knowledge of past incidents and plaintiff's evasive and uncooperative behaviour; however, the officers lacked probable cause for plaintiff's arrest and they are not entitled to qualified immunity on his claim for false arrest; under the facts of the case, the government interests did not outweigh plaintiff's possessory interest in his phone and camera; the warrantless seizure of the items violated plaintiff's clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property, and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; no recognizable Monell claim exists as the evidence is insufficient to show the kind of deliberate indifference needed to establish liability.
Sure they are -- when you make up lies for it to be differ than reality... compare his lies to the true Terry v Ohio saga that plagues America today: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
You better have good reasonable articulable suspicion that I've committed a crime or are about to commit a crime or your not getting any info from me. See you in court for your lawsuit.
It’s very intellectually dishonest the way you describe the pat down of the 3 men. He only reached into the pockets of the 2 men because he felt the weapons when patting them down, and did not reach into the pockets of Katz because he did not feel a weapon. The difference between reasonable search and seizure is that fact. He has no right to search any of their pockets without feeling something (i.e the reasonable suspicion to check it). Also, these men were clearly going to rob the store, please stop implying the entire video that there was any reasonable doubt to the contrary.
You should Unsubscribe to these lies. My career is to Overturn Terry v Ohio-- compare his lies to the truth: Very sad -- this video is lies and fabrications. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Qualified immunity needs to end. You can't enforce the law by breaking it. The fact that the Terry v Ohio decision is predicated on 'reasonable suspicion' means the policy enforcers get it wrong most of the time because they're always frisking people without suspicion that would be considered reasonable.
No -- Un-learn the lies. He lied the whole video. He created this for views and likes. He's a fraud, my friend. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Great work! Terry is such an interesting case. I think we might cover Terry someday in the future. The political implications of the Majority opinion are jarring.
If you do; disregard this entire video. This man lied and made things up. He is really-- he did a disservice to you. I'm an expert on Terry -- EDU for real - not some fraud like this guy... th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I've noticed that Ohio has a lot of Supreme Court Briefs Cases that are important and infamous
Mapp v. Ohio, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Euclid v. Ambler to name a few. :)
I’ve noticed a lot of New York law being important. Cardozo being one of the most famous judges despite spending most of his career in New York courts.
@@iammrbeat And a VERY VERY important case that is ignored in almost every Criminal Court case: Beck v. Ohio. Law schools don't even talk about it.
I would imagine most of the legal stuff goes down in the most populated states with high racial diversity and immigrant populations.
Can't even contravene the constitution in Ohio smh
The problem isn't in court's decision,but in the fact that term "reasonable suspicion" could be used for anything and PDs wouldn't be accountable if they did it wrong.
Exactly. I think they got it right with this decision, but failed to recognize the implications and unintended consequences.
@@iammrbeat Though, as the court has just said, implications aren't always it's business, if the law or constitution needs amending that's up to Congress and the States.
Totally agree and my biggest issue with stop and search. In the UK, I was stopped for suspected drug possession (at the time, dressed with long hair and a bandana - in other words, like a hippy) on the basis of "they could smell weed off me" and you obviously cannot disprove scent.
To make matters worse, I was with my girlfriend who was not searched, nor did I want to draw attention to her because I didn't want to see her being treated the same way. It was a completely discriminatory practice. If they thought I had drugs, surely anyone by association would also be suspicious and you'd also search them?
Worst of all, it further causes that disconnect between police and communities - and that's coming from a non-threatening working class white guy. Must be a lot worse for minorities.
@@ML-ir5vo the police saying they smell wees is what they use to search. 2 times i got pulled over and my car search "because they smell weed. Nothing was found and bsb i was let go. If nothing is found they let u go, if u got drugs then it will look like a good search
Matt Grele I mean does it smell like weed? Lol
6:04 As we all know, the six political sides are Left, Right, Center, Russia, Europe, and Canada
You must have glossed over how I also said "perspectives."
You forgot the seventh and eighth sides: Mexico and "CHUYNA"
@@iammrbeat ok fine six political _perspectives_
Thanks for continuing to make the Supreme Court Briefs series. It's great to hear about these past cases that I would otherwise probably never hear about. Your videos are a perfect balance of historical context, case summary, and outcome. Keep them coming please.
Well thanks for the kind words!
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
YES. Supreme court briefs are my favorite.
Glad you dig the series! :D
I love supreme Court briefs.
It's everyone's favourite
If they are… I would find a new person to listen to. This gentleman got this entire case wrong from beginning to end and he even made things up that aren’t true
@@deletelawz1984Evidence?
The Terry decision was based on the officer seeing Terry engaging in suspicious behavior.
Stopping just anyone walking down the street is not what was intended at all. In fact, stopping people for no reason is a violation of the 4th amendment.
It depends on what you mean by “stopping anyone walking down the street”. The police can approach anyone else in public just as other citizens may approach others to ask them questions or to give them information. The issue is whether the individual is free to go or not. In Terry v. Ohio, Terry and the two others weren’t detained until Officer McFadden physically seized them and searched their outer clothing.
@@ipsurvivor
An officer in uniform is not like a regular citizen. His very presence creates an atmosphere of threat and intimidation because he has the legal power to arrest people. And cops have even killed innocent people.
Officers should only stop someone when they have evidence the person was part of a crime. Stopping anyone for any other reason is a stressful intrusion. What's more, because officers are under orders to make arrests, they look for any indication of criminal activity and start to fish with questions. They do that even when they have no reason to think the individual they're talking to did anything illegal. They frequently make false arrests, but far more often than that, they take up peoples' precious time and bring them stress. They habitually stop people with the hope of finding unknown criminality, and that needs to stop.
As I said in my O.P., the Terry Decision was based on the officer actually observing the person doing something suspicious before stopping him.
@@ipsurvivor No. you're wrong. And it's not even close to how incorrect you are. th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html. LEARN the truth -- not the lies from this fraud.
@@deezynar So..... what's your point? If the seizure is made based on no suspicion, then it's a bad stop. And what ever "stuff" the cop finds on the guy will be thrown out.
@@monkberrymoon4042
My point has been clearly explained.
Cops should not stop or speak to anyone if they don't have evidence that the person committed a crime.
I really like the way you revealed that Terry and Chilton were black and that Katz was white. Some say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this is a prefect example. As we all know, searching the two black men and not the white man as well is VERY """reasonable""" and warrants search and seizure.
I look forward to the next Supreme Court Briefs!
Crazy thing is, I've been teaching this case for years and didn't know until only recently that Terry and Chilton were black.
@@iammrbeat You've been "teaching" this case for years. How is it you never actually researched it?
Some would say that those who choose to believe some TH-cam guy with a questionable history of honesty, without looking into things for themselves, are suckers
@@bjs301 And some would say that trumpists are idiots.
@@kelvinpang438, and, you know, the vast majority of the time, they'd be right.
Do you agree with the Court in this case?
Which Supreme Court case should I cover next for this series?
Also, don't forget to download Newsvoice for free here to support my channel: newsvoice.com/mrbeat
I love democracy
The latest one on Trump's Tax returns/ contraceptives for religious organization/ discrimination against Lgbtq rights
Democracy is Best
Please do Planned Parenthood v Casey
Do I agree?
I think there’s a difference between just ‘frisking’ someone who seems suspicious and pressing their head down on the hood of a car. If the police was less aggressive then they’d probably have more people defending the Stop-and-Frisk policy instead of fighting to abolish it
A very good point. There is so much gray area, and many police officers conduct stop-and-frisk in a professional way.
The police citing "not wanting to be frisked" as their reason to believe a person is suspicious doesn't help.
@@rangergxi that doesn't stand in court
6 out of 10 cops take excessive force as a fringe benefit... you know... like speeding. { Whata you gonna do ? ? Call a cop ?? }
@@Dakotaidk According to Terry v. Ohio a frisk is also a search which implicates the Fourth Amendment.
Mike Bloomberg sees this vid and starts breathing Heavily...
Freaking Bloomberg. I thought it was funny when Trump criticized Bloomberg for stop-and-frisk, and then a week later is all of sudden for stop-and-frisk again.
@@iammrbeat Welcome to politics 🤣
@@iammrbeat I think it was the hypocrisy of the candidate running for that party and holding that view at the same time
@@iammrbeat The 2 Party System in a nutshell.
4:21 "the decision has unintended consequences"
No, I disagree. I think the consequences were extremely intended.
The police were definitely expecting something
My favorite series is back! Thanks Mr. Beat!
Well I guess I have to make more of these then. :D
Gosh I hope not. This video is all lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
> pat down all 3 suspects
>> feels guns on two of them
>>>reaches in to the pockets of the men with guns
Where is the racism there?
K Jones lol
Imagine this you're walking down the street and you're stopped due to the color of your skin. Not "suspicion".
I think an important part of this case is the suspects suspicious behavior before the stop and frisk. If it was done today the police would need video of the behavior before they could stop and frisk, not an insurmountable requirement with today's technology.
Today we do have the luxury of more easily documenting things to justify reasonable suspicion .
There is no holding by any court , that I’m aware of, that requires video verification of suspicious activity prior to being able to perform a Terry Stop and/or a Terry frisk.
Video has certainly been used to help establish that reasonable articulable suspicion was present at the time of many police encounters...but I haven’t seen where it is now required.
Video has also had a huge impact on civil litigation (See Scott v. Harris, Supreme Court 2007) but there is still litigation that lacks video evidence.
The credibility of witnesses is still what it has been for a long time.
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@iammrbeat I definitely agree, and this behavior seemed really suspicious.
Do not rely of the fantasy that “today” we have more technology to prove the age old problem. That would be unwise and dismiss 99.9% of injustices worldwide.
I know you said this series doesn't get as many views as other videos, but it is one of my favourite types of video you make you do so keep everything up!
Thanks so much!
I just found this channel and I LOVE being taught something I never knew the story behind it
I've been enjoying your channel Lately Mr beat. Keep up the good work. Who ever wins the 2020 election will you upload a election video?
Thank you! And yes I plan on making an election of 2020 video.
These may not do as well as your other videos but oh man are they important. If anyone wants to know about the evolution of our “rights” as citizens this is where to go.
It’s incorrect. He’s not doing this other than for video views. This is incorrect data
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Supreme Court Briefs are my favorite Mr. Beat videos. Thank you so much for making these.
I just appreciate you watching them, and I'm so glad they can help!
Mr. Beat, you are one of my favorite social studies teachers. You have helped me learn a lot over the years I have watched you. Never stop!
Thank you so much!
Rocco -- he creates videos for LIKES and Views -- he starts off by lying and it never stop. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
John Terry went on to slip and miss a penalty in the 2008 UCL final that costed Chelsea their first Champions League Trophy and handed it to Manchester United. Its a small world.
💀💀💀
Just finished watching all your old Supreme Court Briefs videos and now there's a new one for me! :) Amazing series!
Thanks for watching!
@@iammrbeat oh my God you did more damage? How much damage have you done? I’m gonna have to take a look at the rest of the things that you’ve done
One of the worst Supreme Court decisions
It definitely had many, MANY unintended consequences.
@@iammrbeat Incarceration rates skyrocketed it after Terry v. Ohio. Police brutality i'm sure also skyrocketed.
President During this time: Lyndon B. Johnson
Chief Justice: Earl Warren
Argued December 12, 1967
Decided June 10, 1968
Case Duration: 181 Days
Decision: 8-1 in favor of Ohio
love the added detail about the vote and reasoning behind the one vote, very important man. Thank you!
I’m not a fan of stop-and-frisk, but I’m curious on what an alternate solution could be to it since there are situations where people actually look suspicious
Solution? It seems to me police are creating problems, as stop-and-frisk does NOT reduce crime. The alternative would be to assume everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Things aren't always what they seem, especially when everyone has prejudice.
@@iammrbeat how can you be sure it doesn't reduces crime without explaining a negative? It's been around since the 60's. I'd bet it does reduce crime. It at least catches bad guys after a crime. Terry stops can happen, before, during and after a crime.
@@Truths_Sayer Dude -- you just don't know and this guy's video didn't help with all the lies. I've downloaded it and Ill be coming after him for his lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
TIME 5:12 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 59% AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!! 24% NEW YORK POPULATION AFRICAN AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A WAY TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS!!!!!!!!! AFRICAN AMERICANS ARE 13% OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! YET, AFRICAN AMERIDCANS COMMIT 50% OF ALL VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!! THEREFORE, ONE WOULD EXPECT, WITH DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF AFRICAN AMERICANS, THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE OF AMERICA; THERE WOULD, SUBSEQUENTLY, BE DOUBLE THE RATE OF VIOLENT CRIMES BEING COMMITTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D
Define suspicious ...
“McFadden’s concern for his own safety”
McFadden went and confronted them.
I've been a lawyer for, like, 30 years, and I've never heard anyone make this argument against Terry before. You really think that a policeman that investigates a suspicious situation is, well, asking for trouble? I mean, if you believe that police shouldn't exist, I guess that makes sense. But as long as we have them, don't you think they should be allowed to "confront" people that potentially doing something criminal?
Gotta agree with the court here.
Stop-and-Frisk seems like an infringement of citizen rights. Interesting food for thought. I like your "Supreme Court Briefs" videos!
And yet, it's so common these days. Glad you like the series. :D
If it came out a minute ago how did you watch it 4 days ago
@@sigmaballsnetwork She's a Patreon supporter. They get early access to videos.
@@iammrbeat How is the comment from G Guerrard 4 days old when the video was uploaded just a few hours ago?
@@shyam14111986 yeah what
This series it’s how I first came to your channel. Keep them coming
Will do!
Oh no-- Not only is this vid inaccurate - it's lies. I'm an expert on ONE THING: Terry v Ohio. th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
My favorite series! Thank you Mr. Beat.
Thank YOU :)
Emmerson -- this video is a fabrication. It's not the truth. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Great video. I enjoy your editing style. It makes some great consumable history videos. Keep up the good work.
Thanks so much! :D
I'm an expert on Terry v Ohio -- this was a very disgusting video. This person made things up ALOT -- th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Justice Douglas was way ahead of his time.
I think him more and more the more I learn about him.
It sucks how much stop and frisk is abused
I'm sure the justices had no idea how much it would be abused in the following decades.
Thank you!
thanks for making these
they help a lot w/class
your craft is much appreciated
You'll flunk if you write down almost anything this guy said. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Thank you Terri for making this become such a controversy. I only like this when it is used LIKE IT WAS INTENDED NOT ABUSED!!
Wow, so relevant with regards to the events that happened after George Floyd. Even without his brutal death, this sort of thing is incredibly touchy to people who have that sort of thing happen to them more often than others. Small wonder they got so mad after George Floyd was killed
It still happens every day. Thanks goodness for cell phones to capture it now.
@@iammrbeat the most significant time prior to today, where there was so much pushback after something divisive, as far as I can tell, was during 1968. The Tet Offensive during Vietnam rocked both the population (leading to people taking to the streets) and the Administration of Lyndon Johnson (people protested outside the White House chanting "hey, hey LBJ, How many kids [did] you kill today?"), ultimately leading him to not seek re-election. But even after that of course, there were still a huge amount of division, protests and pushback, particularly during the Democratic convention in Chicago (as mentioned in your superb series on Presidential Elections in US history Matt :)) with confrontations between the police and the protestors. It's certainly up there with the 2000 and 2016 campaigns in terms of how divided people seemed to be (of course, they're also the two most recent times the winner of the election lost the popular vote)
It's also very touchy to people to whom the Terry frisk was done improperly, like for example, the officer feels your wallet and he knows it's a wallet and picks your pocket anyway. (Brownback v King)
What does the death of George Floyd have to do with it?
@johnthompson2965 kneeling directly on the neck of someone who was already restrained to the point where the person under arrest dies? That's not a valid excuse for a police officer to use the "Reasonably Scared Cop" Rule. What threat can someone already cuffed and on the ground pose to a police officer? That's when the police can be judged (by the general public at least) to go from Objective Reasonableness to Subjective Reasonableness, in other words, police, like the one who murdered George Floyd in May 2020 and other black people who died in Police Custody, can be seemed to use that ruling as an excuse for excessive force
Great video!
Thank you for your video as always :)
Thank you
Thank you for the video, i have a paper on this case!! And this information is very helpful!!
It needs to come back in NYC.
I think it's okay for the police to conduct a stop-and-frisk if they have a reasonable suspicious that a crime is to imminently committed. So imminent that a warrant could not be requested in time
That sounds ok to me most of the time, but the problem is there is a slippery slope, and "reasonably suspicious" is fairly subjective.
I'd like to agree with you in principle, but the amount of times cops catch an imminent crime before it happens without a warrant is incredibly rare lol
@@iammrbeat a slippery slope yes but eliminating it would be backwards. How about cops on the way to a serious domestic assault or another serious crime and someone is running away? Shouldn't they be stopped? The list goes on and on. I think courts after the fact determining what is reasonable is really the best solution on a case by case basis.
@@iammrbeat Can't the court rule on that after the fact? Whether it was reasonable?
@@Truths_Sayer Stop and frisk is COMPLETELY backwards. It doesn't make anyone safer and is used as a tool to strike fear into minority communities. You shouldn't need to wait for police to abuse their power to act on it (Ignoring the fact that the police abuse their power with no consequences constantly)
Will and or when will the Supreme Court rehearsal Terry Vs Ohio..??
Thanks for doing this video Mr Beat, never knew about this!
And you still don't -- this video is completely false at every level and lies at a lot of place. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
You forgot the most important part: The police have a limited amount of time and scope to hold someone under reasonable suspicion. In Terry's case, had he not been carrying a weapon, the detective would have - say - 20 minutes at most. If his suspicions were dispelled, he would have to let the men go. If during those 20 minutes, he finds probable cause to believe that the men were conspiring to commit a robbery, the detective could escalate the Terry stop to an arrest. Otherwise, the detective has to let the men go; however, the detective may continue the investigation and - if he then develops probable cause against the men - he may obtain an arrest warrant.
Shh. That won't make as good of a video because then he can't claim racism as well
Hello i have a similiar issue where i was at a specific location upon leaveing the establishment i was harrased stop by an officer where he did a stop and frisk tempor detaining me asking me questions where i refused to in a disrespectful manner and resistid w out violence under no circiumstances i was involded in a crime neither about to comit one he later stated there were looking for a subject armed with a rifle matching my description is this totally legal or illegal i have trial next month and im lookong to have my attroney drop these charges againestme
These videos might not be as popular, but they're extremely important to produce. Thank you for continuing to release solid content, especially related to hot topics like the powers of the police. I, for one, love Supreme Court Briefs
Well then learn it correctly. This video is pure lies. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
It's the first step on the slippery slope to a totalitarian police state. Clarence Thomas's opinion for the Court in Brownback v King stating that the district court was correct in its judgement on James King's lawsuit is the latest. The implications are:
1) Totality of circumstances is no longer necessary for RAS
2) Undercover police don't have to tell you who they are even if they come off as impersonators and you ask them to identify themselves.
3) Police can pick your pocket during a Terry search no matter what because "artfully concealed weapons"
4) Trying to escape and attempting to flee a criminal act against you by unknown officers is "resisting arrest"
5) Biting an unknown officer because he was actively choking you is "assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm"
6) Flailing your arms in an attempt to escape a perceived kidnapping and a battery because the first officer is pounding you in the face and head and the other officer put a handcuff on one of your wrists is "felonious assault with a dangerous weapon"
7) Items 4) 5) and 6) are each probable cause to arrest you. Never mind the obvious self-defense and entrapment!
This is a complicated issue and I don't know a lot, but what I do know is that Detective McFadden had probable cause in that particular instance
I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
The SCOTUS ruled that NY's stop and frisk program was illegal under the 4th Amendment. NY said they were going to continue doing it anyway (or at least until they found another way of doing it).
Seems like someone saw this ruling and thought they could use it to fuel their prisons yikes
Mr Beat I have spent the afternoon trying to determine how my representative in the US house of representatives voted on a measure voted July 1,2020 on a 45-11 vote to continue to keep troops in Afghanistan I have looked on the Congressional Record website and it has not been helpful perhaps you could teach your viewers how to navigate this site and discover how their representative voted on particular measures?
I think quite a few citizens need this refresher.
Not THIS -- these are lies bro. He made this shit up. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Basically the court skipped over the 4th amendment
Yes -- and he lied about the case. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
3:07 can’t. Believe Thurgood Marshall would vote for something like this...
Mr Beat is playing up the role of race.
@@caseclosed9342 what do you mean?
@@EliFord173 Mr Beat clearly is ignoring the fact a black justice supported it so he can claim systemic racism. I don’t think a black justice and former NAACP lawyer would have supported this decision if it was racist. Also, at the end of the video he points out black residents were more likely to be frisked in NYC by police despite being a smaller portion of the population. But he conveniently leaves out the fact black New Yorkers are more likely to commit crimes. If he were more unbiased in his attempt to educate people he would have explained these details.
@@caseclosed9342 That's only because you have no clue about history or what you're writing now. You just don't know. Don't be offended -- you don't know and you're guessing. Very sad -- this video is lies and fabrications. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Good Job Eli -- Yes. the whole video is fraud. Thurgood had JUST gotten on the court in 1967 ... Earl Warren had been President of the Free Mason's and Black Folks were JUST getting rights-- Thurgood was told his place was to vote as Earl told him. That changed over the years -- and he just dissented and did zero good. Ifyou listen to the Oral Arugments-- you'll hear Thurgood Tear McFadden to Shreds! Then-- Earl makes him vote for Terry Laws. MUCH like the BMA (Black Med Assoc) vote FOR Tuskegee to continue --- the AMA (American Medical Assoc) -- I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
1:53 There *"was"* this law called the exclusionary rule.
59% is still way too high not to include some systemic racism, but I will point out that the percentage of criminals of minority races do often significantly exceed their percentage of the general population just because they're more likely to grow up in poverty and/or bad neighborhoods
It’s crazy how these seemingly good decisions get manipulated to benefit a minority. I love the Supreme Court Briefs series! Thank you!
oh that's so sad -- this video he produced is garbage... he lied. He lies about a ton of things... compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
I love these Supreme Court briefs!!! 👏👏
He lied the entire thing. None of this is accurate or even close to the truth. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Do not discontinue SCB!!
I'll keep making them, though I've slowed down making them lately.
Overturn Terry V Ohio
Having a firearm is a constitutional right and has been since the inception of this country.
Define "reasonable suspicion".
Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable, articuable suspicion that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.
The "reasonable" part of it is supposed to be based on experience in law enforcement. Would another officer who is objective also be suspicious of the situation? If so, the suspicion is reasonable.
The articuable factor is also very important. It is extremely important that an officer can articulate why they believe the individual or situation to be suspicious. In short, if an officer is going to stop someone based on reasonable suspicion, they better be able to explain to a judge or attorney why they stopped them.
William Douglas was right!
Learn the truth - this vid is completely false. Very sad -- this video is lies and fabrications. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Damn respect for Douglas
I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
This is all lies this guy Mr Beats made up.
Not sure if you're still doing this series or are taking suggestions from TH-cam comments, but you think you could do a video on Furman v. Georgia and Gregg v. Georgia?
Didn’t the court also say the detained suspects must also be believed to be armed and dangerous prior to being frisked.
The government can not give the government permission to ignore the constitution so government can government..
SCJ Douglass was 💯 correct.
kinda silly to say the police has more authority than a magistrate to execute searches, when a police officer can personally observe crimes and magistrates can't, and magistrates' jobs involves lots of subjectivity in decisionmaking as well.
Just had my truck seized and they are saying its set for forfeiture. Even though the fines are way less than the value of the truck. They state it was involved in the crime even though it wasn't. 7 other cases similar they did not take the vehicle but they did with mine because it is paid for. Doesn't the 8th Amendment protect me from this type of government theft?
I believe the court ruled properly as a single officer who approached three men, at night who he believed to have been casing a store. If those men decided to gun down the officer this case law probably would have never came true. He had reasonable suspicion which became probable. Judges are not on scene and face the dangers that officers face which is why the frisk is necessary if the officer is lawfully there.
Typical government. Giving the government more power.
Love your channel !
And 2 years later? Enjoy the crime wave NYC 👍🏼😁
Ur actually carrying my history grade rn tysm
question for viewers do u think the supreme court verdict would be different today?
When you can, you should do Planned Parenthood v Casey! It’s a pretty important one helping explain reproductive rights. Love your series!
He made it
Your supreme court videos are by far my favorite videos you make.
I'm so sorry to read this -- he made it up. It's not true. Terry v Ohio is my career. Sad he misled and lied to so many people Compare the truth to his lies: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Damn william douglas worded that perfectly
And that's how Terry versus Ohio violates the 4th amendment because it changes persons in the 4th amendment to officer safety and it changes probable cause to reasonable articulate suspicion which violates the Fourth amendment just because our officer is suspicious of you do not give him the right to put his hands on you until you committed a crime or violated some kind of penal code like the Fourth amendment says it's the right of the people to be secure in their person's papers houses in effect against unreasonable searches and seizures a warrant shall not be issued but only upon probable cause particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seen supported by all the affirmation now where does it say in the 4th amendment that a cop has the right to walk up to you because he's suspicious of you and start touching you like he's sexually assaulting you when all he has is suspicion of you because that's what they're doing they can use that indiscriminately against anybody that that police officer don't like the way that he looks the way that he or she walks that's not specifics on how reasonable suspicion can be used they got to be actual facts for Blue line terrace to sexually assault you because that is unwanted touching by a complete stranger and you don't know this complete stranger mental state
John Terry, like the Chelsea legend 😂
Here is what Terry looked like.
"Oh no."
Here is what Chilton looked like.
"Oh nooooo."
Here is was Katz looked like.
"OHHHHH NOOOOOOOO"
I don't like unjustified stop and frisks. One time I got one of these for an hour long just after I left work. I feel when a cop does one of these in a truly unjustified manner and finds nothing they should be given mandatory life in prison.
I remember "Stop and Frisk" being braught up during the Democrate debates in 2019. Michael Blumberg was the one being questioned about the practice.
Please do a "worst supreme court decisions" video
Creates Reasonable Suspicion to Replace the Stricter #ProbableCause
What about the ruling in Brown v Texas = Mere suspicion cannot be a reason to detain.
Also, the Terry stop has turn into a stop and search not for weapons, but for an ID or to detain/arrest cameramen who are filming police activity and seize their cameras. A clear breach of their rights, per Robbins v City of Des Moines.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Loken and Shepherd, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Civil rights. Plaintiff's actions in filming the entrance to the police station and engaging in confrontational behaviour went beyond any constitutionally protected recording activity; defendants' actions, when combined with the defendant police officers' knowledge of vehicles being vandalized and stolen in the area and their personal knowledge that a previous filming incident led to the murder of two officers, could cause an objectively reasonable person in the officers' position to suspect plaintiff was up to more than simply recording police; the court cannot say the officers' conduct was objectively unreasonable under clearly established law, nor in violation of the First Amendment; defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for the Terry stop they made because they had at least arguable reasonable suspicion given their knowledge of past incidents and plaintiff's evasive and uncooperative behaviour; however, the officers lacked probable cause for plaintiff's arrest and they are not entitled to qualified immunity on his claim for false arrest; under the facts of the case, the government interests did not outweigh plaintiff's possessory interest in his phone and camera; the warrantless seizure of the items violated plaintiff's clearly established right to be free of unreasonable seizures of his property, and the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on this claim; no recognizable Monell claim exists as the evidence is insufficient to show the kind of deliberate indifference needed to establish liability.
I didn't realize the supreme court briefs didn't do as well as the other videos. I think they are some of the most interesting ones
Sure they are -- when you make up lies for it to be differ than reality... compare his lies to the true Terry v Ohio saga that plagues America today: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
You better have good reasonable articulable suspicion that I've committed a crime or are about to commit a crime or your not getting any info from me. See you in court for your lawsuit.
It’s very intellectually dishonest the way you describe the pat down of the 3 men. He only reached into the pockets of the 2 men because he felt the weapons when patting them down, and did not reach into the pockets of Katz because he did not feel a weapon. The difference between reasonable search and seizure is that fact. He has no right to search any of their pockets without feeling something (i.e the reasonable suspicion to check it). Also, these men were clearly going to rob the store, please stop implying the entire video that there was any reasonable doubt to the contrary.
The supreme court doesn't seem like a big fan of personal privacy.
Well sometimes they do :/
Mr. Beat this case just made me think of the Katz vs US and New Jersey vs TLO which you also made videos about and had similar outcomes.
I am a new subscriber. Love your videos! First saw you from “the beat goes on”
You should Unsubscribe to these lies. My career is to Overturn Terry v Ohio-- compare his lies to the truth: Very sad -- this video is lies and fabrications. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Thank you
Qualified immunity needs to end. You can't enforce the law by breaking it. The fact that the Terry v Ohio decision is predicated on 'reasonable suspicion' means the policy enforcers get it wrong most of the time because they're always frisking people without suspicion that would be considered reasonable.
It's super helpful thanks for your effort
No -- Un-learn the lies. He lied the whole video. He created this for views and likes. He's a fraud, my friend. I'm an expert and my career is Terry v Ohio. Compare: th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
Great work! Terry is such an interesting case. I think we might cover Terry someday in the future. The political implications of the Majority opinion are jarring.
If you do; disregard this entire video. This man lied and made things up. He is really-- he did a disservice to you. I'm an expert on Terry -- EDU for real - not some fraud like this guy... th-cam.com/video/tD7zJZmXpU8/w-d-xo.html
I don't think the YT algorithm understands the Ohio meme 💀
Supreme Court briefs made me laugh.