Omplete a legal Memorandum for a case study

a? Complete a legal Memorandum for the following:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Questions:
Include a brief summary of the case.
Explain the courtas decision. Were Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
Summarize the courtas opinion, as well as any dissenting opinion.
The format of the report is to be as follows:
Typed, double spaced, Times New Roman font (size 12), one-inch margins on all sides (APA format).
Use headers for each of the subjects being covered, followed by your response.
In addition to the four to five (4-5) pages required, a title page is to be included. The title page is to contain the title of the assignment, your name, the instructoras name, the course title, and the date.

TERRY v. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
392 U.S. 1
TERRY v. OHIO.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 67.
Argued December 12, 1967.
Decided June 10, 1968.
A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of Casing a job, a stick-up,the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men Mumbled something,whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioners overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chiltons outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioners or Chiltons outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying [392 U.S. 1, 2] concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer for his own protection had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory Stopand an arrest, and between a Friskof the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that No substantial constitutional questionwas involved. Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Protects people, not places,and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 8-9.
2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 12.
3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques; and this Courts approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 13-15.
4. The Fourth Amendment applies to Stop and friskprocedures such as those followed here. Pp. 16-20.
(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has Seizedthat person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 16.
(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a persons clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a Searchunder that Amendment. P. 16.
5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous [392 U.S. 1, 3] regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 20-27.
(a) Though the police must whenever practicable secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 20.
(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 21-22.
(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 22.
(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 24.
(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 25-26.
(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 26-27.
6. The officers protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 27-30.
(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officers hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 28.
(b) The officers search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 29-30.
7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 30-31.
Affirmed. [392 U.S. 1, 4]
Louis Stokes argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Jack G. Day.
Reuben M. Payne argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was John T. Corrigan.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging reversal, were filed by Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Michael Meltsner, Melvyn Zarr, and Anthony G. Amsterdam for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., and by Bernard A. Berkman, Melvin L. Wulf, and Alan H. Levine for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.
Briefs of amici curiae, urging affirmance, were filed by Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Vinson, Ralph S. Spritzer, Beatrice Rosenberg, and Mervyn Hamburg for the United States; by Louis J. Lefkowitz, pro se, Samuel A. Hirshowitz, First Assistant Attorney General, and Maria L. Marcus and Brenda Soloff, Assistant Attorneys General, for the Attorney General of New York; by Charles Moylan, Jr., Evelle J. Younger, and