Document Type
Article
Publication Date
9-22-1964
Abstract
In the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Bernard Friedman drew a distinction between "stop and frisk" and "search and seizure." This distinction was also recognized the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio.
Judge Friedman wrote in his opinion:
"A search is primarily for the purpose of trying to obtain evidence in connection with the commission of a crime, that the police officer may reasonably believe that a crime has been committed or might be committed.
A frisking is strictly for the protection of the officer's person and his life. There was reasonable cause in this case for the officer, Detective McFadden, to approach these individuals and pat them. He approached them, and for his own protection frisked them."
In drawing this distinction between "stop and frisk" and "search and seizure," Judge Friedman cites these cases: People v. Rivera (14 N.Y.2d 441, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 201 N.E.2d 32 (1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 978) and People v. Martin )46 Cal.2d 106 (1956); 293 P. 2d 52) and Ker v. California (374 U.S. 23 (1963))
Recommended Citation
Friedman, Bernard, "64/09/22 Judge Bernard Friedman's Opinion in State v. Chilton and State v. Terry" (1964). Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. 10.
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/terryvohio_cuyahogacountycourtofcommonpleasdocs/10
