1700 - 1800

1729 - 8 August, 1729 - The preservation of the peace, protection of property and the arrest of offenders has been the goal of Baltimore residents since August 8, 1729, when the Legislature created Baltimore Town, 100 years before the "London Metropolitan Police Department" was founded by Sir Robert Peel (1829) Note: Sir Robert Peel "Bobby" Peel is widely believed to be where the nickname of the police helmet "Bobby Cap" came from, upon founding the London Metropolitan Police Department, officers were quickly called Bobby Cops, or Bobbies, likewise their hats, "Bobby Caps" 
1775 - Would be the start of what would come to be 9 years of haphazard policing in "Baltimore Town" where mistakes were made, but those mistakes were learned from, and in 1784 "Baltimore Town", decided to form a paid "Watch", in which the Watchmen could be fired, or otherwise penalized, for neglect of duty. These first attempts to form the Nightwatch had male inhabitant capable of duty sign an agreement, in which they swore to conform to police regulations adopted by the citizens and sanctioned by the Board of Commissioners, to attend when summoned to serve as night watchmen. This committee had some of the functions of the 1888 Board of Police Commissioners. (The town was divided into Districts and in each of these was stationed a company commanded by a Captain of the Nightwatch.) 
1775/76 - The first Captains of the watch, or police, in Baltimore, under this primitive arrangement, were Captain James Calhoun, of the First District; Captain George Woolsey, Second District; Captain Benjamin Griffith, Third District; Captain Barnard Eichelberger, Fourth District; Captain George Lindenberger, Fifth District; and Captain William Goodwin, of the Sixth District. At Fell's Point, Captain Isaac Yanbidder, with two assistants, or Lieutenants. Each Captain had under his command a squad of sixteen men, every inhabitant being enrolled, and taking his turn. The streets were patrolled by these watchmen from 10 pm. until daybreak. 
1776 -  20 December 1776 - As British troops closed in on Philadelphia at the end of 1776, the Continental Congress decided to abandon the city and flee south to the safe haven of Baltimore. Delegates convened on December 20, 1776, inside the spacious house and tavern of Henry Fite. Click HERE 

1784 - The First Attempt to Organize a Paid Force to Guard Baltimore occurred in 1784. Constables were appointed and given police powers to keep the peace. Baltimore's Police Department had been developing their police force since the formation of our "Night Watch" in 1784. In the beginning, they were "Necessary to prevent fires, burglaries, and other outrages and disorders." This from (Chapter 69, Acts of 1784). This was 45 years before Sir Robert Peel's London Metropolitan Police was founded in 1829. 
1784 - Baltimore would obtain Street Lights by order of the Police Department - These lights were oil lamps and they were lit by order of the police, they were extinguished by the police, and they were maintained by order of the police. It was not so obvious to the public as it were to the panel of commissioners, and to the council of city hall, but the lighted streets in Baltimore were a deterrent that prevented, and decreased crime, in and around "Mob Town". While at first many of the ideas, and or theories of the Panel of Commissioners, and or Our Marshals were often shot down, or put off until they either died in committee or were funded privately. Still, many of these ideas went on to become the norm in law enforcement throughout the country, and around the world.  Furthermore, these concepts would eventually be paid for, and widely approved of and authorized by state legislatures. 
1787 -  May 1787 - We lost our Brother Watchman Turner 
1797 - 3 April 1797 - the City Council passed the first ordinance affecting the police. It directed that three persons were to be appointed Commissioners of the watch. They could employ for one year as many Captains and watchmen as had been employed in the night watch the year past for the same remuneration. The Commissioners prescribed regulations and hours of duty for the police. 
1798 - 19 March 1798 - An officer known as “The City” or “High Constable”, was created by the ordinance on March 19, 1798. His duty was "to walk through the streets, lanes, and alleys of the city daily, with mace in hand, taking such rounds, that within a reasonable time he shall visit all parts of the city, and give information to the Mayor or other Magistrate, of all nuisances within the city, and all obstructions and impediments in the streets, lanes, and alleys, and of all offenses committed against the laws and ordinances." He was also required to report the names of the offenders against any ordinance and the names of the witnesses who could sustain the prosecutions against them and regard the mayor as his chief. The yearly salary of the city constable was fixed at $350, and he was required to give a bond for the performance of his duty. 
1798 - Baltimore made the first of certain steps toward creating the chief of police, or marshal as he was later called. A high constable was appointed, and it was his duty to tour the city frequently, carried a mace, the badge of authority, and to report on lawbreakers.  By the turn of the century, Baltimore had again become an unmanageable, riotous city. It was now a bustling community of 31,514 in population and one historian remarks naively, "The city was a rendezvous of a number of evil characters."  
1799 - 26 February 1799 - Authorized the appointment of a city constable in each ward. This ward constable was thus a policeman, and the term of city constable was not properly his although his duties were defined by the ordinance to be the same as those of the city or high constable.

sun
mon
tue
wed
thu
fri
sat
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
 
 
 
 
 

No events for this period

BCP chrome HOF72 Marshal Thomas Farnan

Baltimore Police Hall of Fame

These officers are legends with names that everyone should be familiar with; they either put forward something that resulted in long-lasting improvements or stood out for a specific act or actions during their careers with the Baltimore Police Department. Members of our department nominated all of them. If you have someone to nominate, send us their name, years of active service, assignment(s), and why you believe they should be added to this list.

Baltimore Police Historic Society
      "Officer of the Year"
 
Baltimore City Police Fallen Heroes  
Known Call Box Numbers 
Known Badge Numbers 
Baltimore City Police Blue Bloods 
Baltimore City Police Alumni 
Baltimore Police Newsletters  
What makes an Espantoon an Espantoon 
Final Roll Call 
Good Cop - Bad Cop 
History Calendar 
Baltimore Police Historical Society 
Books Written by our Police

Button banner

button front

Support this Page

Buy our Challenge Coins

$25.00 ea.
$4.00 postage for first coin 
.50 cents each for all after the first

Click HERE for more info

Button banner

Gold Button

Support this Page

Buy our Defund the Police Patch

$6.50
Free postage 
Click HERE for more info

Button bannerGold Button

Support this Page

Buy our Served with Honor Patch

$6.50

Free postage Click HERE for more info

 

Irvin H Hahn CompanyF350Replica BPD Badges
Click HERE or the logo above

Diecast-truck.jpgF350For Sale BPD Diecast Truck

To see a copy of the Order Form click the above picture or click HERE. You can also write Skip Panowitz direct at the following email -  Autocollectibles@verizon.net  A portion of your purchase will go toward funding this site, research for the museum, and toward the preservation of Baltimore Police Department's history.  CODE  

American Patch PinAPP LogoAmerican Patch & Pin

Commemorate your occasions, design your own custom patches, pins & coins. When we at Baltimore Police History have our patches made, we only use American Patch & Pin Company.

Click HERE or the logo above to visit their site.      HERE

redlineMake a Donation 300x247

Click HERE or the PayPal pic Above to Donate 

 

Press Review

Terry v. Ohio

terry vs ohioTerry vs Ohio

The Terry case involved an incident that took place on October 31, 1963, in Cleveland, Ohio. Police officer Martin McFadden was on duty in downtown Cleveland and noticed two men standing on a street corner. One of the men, John W. Terry, walked down the street, stopped in front of a certain store and looked through its window, then briefly continued on before turning around and returning to where he started, stopping on his way back to look in the store window again. The other man, Richard Chilton, then did the same. McFadden watched the pair repeat this routine about a dozen times. A third man then joined Terry and Chilton and the three walked up the street together toward the store. McFadden suspected that the men had been "casing" the store in preparation for robbing it, so he followed and confronted them. He asked the men's names, but they gave noncommittal mumbling answers. McFadden then grabbed Terry and Chilton, spun them around, patted down their exterior clothing, and discovered that they both had pistols in their jacket pockets.

McFadden arrested Terry and Chilton, and they were charged in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas with illegally carrying concealed weapons. At trial, Terry's lawyer filed a motion to suppress the evidence of the discovered pistol, arguing that the "frisk" had been a violation of the Fourth Amendment and therefore the pistol McFadden discovered during it should have been excluded from evidence under the exclusionary rule. The trial judge denied his motion on the basis that the "stop-and-frisk" was generally presumed legal, and Terry was convicted. He appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which affirmed his conviction, then appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, which dismissed his appeal. He then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case and granted certiorari.

Supreme Court decision

On June 10, 1968, the Supreme Court issued an 8–1 decision against Terry that upheld the constitutionality of the "stop-and-frisk" procedure as long as the police officer performing it has a "reasonable suspicion" that the targeted person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime, or is committing a crime, and may be "armed and presently dangerous".

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Earl Warren,
The author of the majority opinion in Terry
 

Eight justices formed the majority and joined an opinion written by chief justice Earl Warren. The Court began by accepting Terry's arguments, which Ohio had disputed, that policeman McFadden's stopping, questioning, and frisking of Terry and Chilton constituted actual "searches" and "seizures" under the Fourth Amendment. But the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment "searches" and "seizures" that occurred during a "stop-and-frisk" were not "unreasonable" under the Amendment's first clause. Both the initial "stop" and the subsequent "frisk" were so "limited" and "brief" that a lesser justification sufficed, rather than requiring the police to have probable cause beforehand.

If this case involved police conduct subject to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment, we would have to ascertain whether "probable cause" existed to justify the search and seizure which took place. However, that is not the case. We do not retreat from our holdings that the police must, whenever practicable, obtain advance judicial approval of searches and seizures through the warrant procedure, or that in most instances failure to comply with the warrant requirement can only be excused by exigent circumstances. But we deal here with an entire rubric of police conduct—necessarily swift action predicated upon the on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat—which historically has not been, and as a practical matter could not be, subjected to the warrant procedure. Instead, the conduct involved in this case must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures.

— Terry, 392 U.S. at 20 (citations omitted).

Reasoning that police officers' need to protect themselves outweighed the limited intrusions involved, the Court ruled that officers could "stop" a person if they had "reasonable suspicion" that criminal activity was afoot, and could then "frisk" the person who was stopped if they had "reasonable suspicion" that the person was "armed and presently dangerous." Neither intrusion required that police have the higher level of "probable cause" that would be needed to arrest or to conduct a full search. The Court defined this new, lesser standard of "reasonable suspicion" as being less than "probable cause" but more than just a hunch, stating that "the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion."

Our evaluation of the proper balance that has to be struck in this type of case leads us to conclude that there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime. The officer need not be absolutely certain that the individual is armed; the issue is whether a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would be warranted in the belief that his safety or that of others was in danger. And in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in such circumstances, due weight must be given, not to his inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or "hunch," but to the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience.

— Terry, 392 U.S. at 27 (footnotes and citations omitted).

The Court held that this "reasonable suspicion" standard must apply to both the initial stop and the frisk. First, it said that a police officer must have reasonable suspicion to stop a suspect in the first place. Second, it held that an officer could then "frisk" a stopped suspect if he or she had reasonable suspicion that the suspect was armed and dangerous, or if, in the officer's experience, the suspected criminal activity was of a type that was "likely" to involve weapons. The officer's "frisk" could only be for the sole purpose of ensuring the suspect was not armed, and so had to be limited to a pat-down of the suspect's outer clothing.

The Court then applied these legal principles to McFadden's actions with Terry and found that they comported with the "reasonable suspicion" standard. McFadden had years of experience as a policeman and was able to articulate the observations that led him to suspect that Terry and the other men were preparing to rob the store. Since McFadden reasonably suspected that the men were preparing for armed robbery, he reasonably suspected that Terry was armed, and so his frisk of Terry's clothing was permissible and did not violate Terry's Fourth Amendment rights. 

The Court ended its opinion by framing the issue very narrowly, saying the question it was answering was "whether it is always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons unless there is probable cause for an arrest." In answer to this limited question, the Court said it was not. It ruled that when an American policeman observes "unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous", it is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment for the policeman to conduct a "stop-and-frisk" of the people he suspects.

Concurring opinion of Justice White

Justice White joined the opinion of the Court but suggested that

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained or frisked but may refuse to cooperate and go on his way. However, given the proper circumstances, such as those in this case, it seems to me the person may be briefly detained against his will while pertinent questions are directed to him. Of course, the person stopped is not obliged to answer, answers may not be compelled, and refusal to answer furnishes no basis for an arrest, although it may alert the officer to the need for continued observation.

With regard to the lack of obligation to respond when detained under circumstances of Terry, this opinion came to be regarded as persuasive authority in some jurisdictions, and the Court cited these remarks in dicta in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420 (1984), at 439. However, in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Court held that neither of these remarks was controlling in a situation where a state law required a detained person to identify himself.

Dissenting opinion of Justice Douglas

Justice William O. Douglas strongly disagreed with permitting a stop and search absent probable cause:

We hold today that the police have greater authority to make a 'seizure' and conduct a 'search' than a judge has to authorize such action. We have said precisely the opposite over and over again.

To give the police greater power than a magistrate is to take a long step down the totalitarian path. Perhaps such a step is desirable to cope with modern forms of lawlessness. But if it is taken, it should be the deliberate choice of the people through a constitutional amendment.

1 black devider 800 8 72

POLICE INFORMATION

If you have copies of: your Baltimore Police Department Class Photo, Pictures of our Officers, Vehicles, Equipment, Newspaper Articles relating to our department and or officers, Old Departmental Newsletters, Lookouts, Wanted Posters, and or Brochures. Information on Deceased Officers and anything that may help Preserve the History and Proud Traditions of this agency. Please contact Retired Detective Kenny Driscoll.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Devider color with motto

NOTICE

How to Dispose of Old Police Items

Please contact Det. Ret. Kenny Driscoll if you have any pictures of you or your family members and wish them remembered here on this tribute site to Honor the fine men and women who have served with Honor and Distinction at the Baltimore Police Department. Anyone with information, photographs, memorabilia, or other "Baltimore City Police" items can contact Ret. Det. Kenny Driscoll at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. follow us on Twitter @BaltoPoliceHist or like us on Facebook or mail pics to 8138 Dundalk Ave. Baltimore Md. 21222

 

Copyright © 2002 Baltimore City Police History - Ret Det Kenny Driscoll 

YOU MAY LIKE

What Makes an Espantoon an Espantoon

Richard J. Ellwood Sr

Gary Provenzano BPD History Pictures

Officer John F. Andrews

How to Dispose of Old Police Items

logo

Please contact Det. Ret. Kenny Driscoll if you have any pictures of you or your family members and wish them remembered here on this tribute site to Honor the fine men and women who have served with Honor and Distinction at the Baltimore Police Department. Anyone with information, photographs, memorabilia, or other "Baltimore City Police" items can contact Ret. Det. Kenny Driscoll at   Kenny@BaltimoreCityPoliceHistory.com follow us on Twitter @BaltoPoliceHist or like us on Facebook or mail pics to 8138 Dundalk Ave. Baltimore Md. 21222.

NEWSLETTER

Subscribe now to get 100 exclusive photo & two newsletters per month