| Points: 150 |
Assignment 2: Terry V.Ohio392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. ED.2d 889, 1968 U.S. |
| Criteria |
Unacceptable
Below 60% F
|
Meets Minimum Expectations60-69% D |
Fair
70-79% C
|
Proficient
80-89% B
|
Exemplary
90-100% A
|
- Summarize five (5) key aspects of Terry v. Ohio.
Weight: 5%
|
Did not submit or incompletely summarized five (5) key aspects ofTerry v. Ohio. |
Insufficiently summarized five (5) key aspects ofTerry v. Ohio. |
Partially summarized five (5) key aspects ofTerry v. Ohio. |
Satisfactorily summarized five (5) key aspects ofTerry v. Ohio. |
Thoroughly summarized five (5) key aspects ofTerry v. Ohio. |
- Posit whether or not you believe law enforcement violated Terry and the other men’s right to privacy which is secured by the Fourth Amendment. Justify your position.
Weight: 20%
|
Did not submit or incompletely posited whether or not you believe law enforcement violated Terry and the other men’s right to privacy which is secured by the Fourth Amendment. Did not submit or incompletely justified your position. |
Insufficiently posited whether or not you believe law enforcement violated Terry and the other men’s right to privacy which is secured by the Fourth Amendment. Insufficiently justified your position. |
Partially posited whether or not you believe law enforcement violated Terry and the other men’s right to privacy which is secured by the Fourth Amendment. Partially justified your position. |
Satisfactorily posited whether or not you believe law enforcement violated Terry and the other men’s right to privacy which is secured by the Fourth Amendment. Satisfactorily justified your position. |
Thoroughly posited whether or not you believe law enforcement violated Terry and the other men’s right to privacy which is secured by the Fourth Amendment. Thorouughly justified your position. |
- Examine the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas, and discuss the origins and importance of probable cause as it relates to law enforcement’s discretion to search Terry’s car in this case.
Weight: 10%
|
Did not submit or incompletely examined the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas, and did not submit or incompletely discussed the origins and importance of probable cause as it relates to law enforcement’s discretion to search Terry’s car in this case. |
Insufficiently examined the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas, and insufficiently discussed the origins and importance of probable cause as it relates to law enforcement’s discretion to search Terry’s car in this case. |
Partially examined the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas, and partially discussed the origins and importance of probable cause as it relates to law enforcement’s discretion to search Terry’s car in this case. |
Satisfactorily examined the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas, and satisfactorily discussed the origins and importance of probable cause as it relates to law enforcement’s discretion to search Terry’s car in this case. |
Thoroughly examined the dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas, and thoroughly discussed the origins and importance of probable cause as it relates to law enforcement’s discretion to search Terry’s car in this case. |
- Examine the two part test provided by the Court inTerry that first asks whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception and second asks whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.Discuss whether or not this test leaves officers with too much discretion when making a determination to stop an individual.
Weight: 20%
|
Did not submit or incompletely examined the two part test provided by the Court in Terrythat first asks whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception and second whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Did not submit or incompletely discussed whether or not this test leaves officers with too much discretion when making a determination to stop an individual. |
Insufficiently examined the two part test provided by the Court inTerry that first asks whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception and second whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Insufficiently discussed whether or not this test leaves officers with too much discretion when making a determination to stop an individual. |
Partially examined the two part test provided by the Court inTerry that first asks whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception and second whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Partially discussed whether or not this test leaves officers with too much discretion when making a determination to stop an individual. |
Satisfactorily examined the two part test provided by the Court inTerry that first asks whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception and second whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Satisfactorily discussed whether or not this test leaves officers with too much discretion when making a determination to stop an individual. |
Thoroughly examined the two part test provided by the Court inTerry that first asks whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception and second whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. Thoroughly discussed whether or not this test leaves officers with too much discretion when making a determination to stop an individual. |
- Examine the Court’s holding inTerry that provides that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Review the factors that help shape the totality of circumstances, such as specialized knowledge of the officers, investigative inferences, personal observations of suspicious behavior, and information from other sources. Question whether these factors in question are too subjective to establish probable cause. Provide a rationale for your response.
Weight: 20%
|
Did not submit or incompletely examined the Court’s holding in Terry that provides that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Did not submit or incompletely reviewed the factors that help shape the totality of circumstances, such as specialized knowledge of the officers, investigative inferences, personal observations of suspicious behavior, and information from other sources. Did not submit or incompletely questioned whether these factors in question are too subjective to establish probable cause. Did not submit or incompletely provided a rationale for your response. |
Insufficiently examined the Court’s holding in Terry that provides that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Insufficiently reviewed the factors that help shape the totality of circumstances, such as specialized knowledge of the officers, investigative inferences, personal observations of suspicious behavior, and information from other sources. Insufficiently questioned whether these factors in question are too subjective to establish probable cause. Insufficiently provided a rationale for your response. |
Partially examined the Court’s holding in Terry that provides that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Partially reviewed the factors that help shape the totality of circumstances, such as specialized knowledge of the officers, investigative inferences, personal observations of suspicious behavior, and information from other sources. Partially questioned whether these factors in question are too subjective to establish probable cause. Partially provided a rationale for your response. |
Satisfactorily examined the Court’s holding in Terry that provides that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Satisfactorily reviewed the factors that help shape the totality of circumstances, such as specialized knowledge of the officers, investigative inferences, personal observations of suspicious behavior, and information from other sources. Satisfactorily questioned whether these factors in question are too subjective to establish probable cause. Satisfactorily provided a rationale for your response. |
Thoroughly examined the Court’s holding in Terry that provides that probable cause is based upon the totality of the circumstances. Thoroughly reviewed the factors that help shape the totality of circumstances, such as specialized knowledge of the officers, investigative inferences, personal observations of suspicious behavior, and information from other sources. Thoroughly questioned whether these factors in question are too subjective to establish probable cause. Thoroughly provided a rationale for your response. |
- Debate the validity of the Court’s holding that whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized” that person with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Justify your response.Weight: 10%
|
Did not submit or incompletely debated the validity of the Court’s holding that whenever a police officer accosts and individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized” that person with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Did not submit or incompletely justified your response. |
Insufficiently debated the validity of the Court’s holding that whenever a police officer accosts and individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized” that person with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Insufficiently justified your response. |
Partially debated the validity of the Court’s holding that whenever a police officer accosts and individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized” that person with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Partially justified your response. |
Satisfactorily debated the validity of the Court’s holding that whenever a police officer accosts and individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized” that person with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Satisfactorily justified your response. |
Thoroughly debated the validity of the Court’s holding that whenever a police officer accosts and individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized” that person with the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Thoroughly justified your response. |
- 2 references Weight: 5%
|
No references provided |
Does not meet the required number of references; all references poor quality choices. |
Does not meet the required number of references; some references poor quality choices. |
Meets number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
Exceeds number of required references; all references high quality choices. |
| 8. Clarity, writing mechanics, and formatting requirementsWeight: 10% |
More than 8 errors present |
7-8 errors present |
5-6 errors present |
3-4 errors present |
0-2 errors present |
