On October 31st, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio, a police officer named Martin McFadden observed two men standing outside a storefront. He watched one of the men walk down the street pausing to look in a store window. At then end of the street the man turned around and proceeded to walk back, pausing at the same store window as on his way down. Upon reaching the other man, the two conferred. The other man then made the same trip down the street, pausing to look in the same store window. A third man then joined the two men at the corner. They talked and then the third man left. The two men then returned to the ritual of walking up and down the street. McFadden then followed the two men, and watched as they met up with the third man in front of Zucker's Store. At this point, Officer McFadden walked up to the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked for their names. He asked the first man, Terry, to turn around. He frisked him, and, feeling a pistol butt inside Terry's overcoat, ordered the three men into the store. Terry and Chilton were charged with possession of a concealed weapon, and were each sentenced to three-year terms . The question that arises in this case has to do with the Fourth Amendment, specifically the line "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searchers and seizures, shall not be violated." In early 1967, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, and Terry v. Ohio was argued on December 12th, 1967.
             Petitioner Terry's case was based on the definition of two phrases, "probable cause" and "unreasonable search and seizure." Louis Stokes, the attorney for Terry, argued that "at the point that [Officer McFadden} lay his hands on the citizen, he did not have the probable cause that is required."
             Stokes argued that as soon as "you lay the hand on the citizen, you begin to exercise dominion on that citizen... in order for you ...