John W. Terry v. State of Ohio
392 US 1, 20 L Ed 2d 889, 88 S. Ct. 1868
Facts
A police officer observed Terry and two other men repeatedly
walking past and peering into a local store. The officer, a 39 year veteran,
believed that the individuals were engaged in extremely suspicious behavior
and were probably "caseing a job." He approach the individuals and asked for
their names. After receiving a mumbled response, the officer spun Terry
around a patted down his jacket uncovering a gun. He then patted down
the other two suspects, uncovering a gun on one suspect, but not on the
other. The officer confined his activities to a pat down of the outer layers
of clothing.
Question
Does a stop and frisk qualify as a search of seizure protected under
the Fourth Amendment?
Does a stop and frisk, lacking probable cause, violate the suspect's
rights under the Fourth Amendment?
Holding
"We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experiences
that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is
dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of
investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes
reasonable inquires, and where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety,
he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of
such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to
assault him. Such a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and
any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person
from whom they were taken."
A stop and frisk is clearly a search and a seizure.
Reasoning
The Court felt that the "all or nothing" approach, requiring a
warrant and probable cause, to any type of search was inadequate to deal
with the realities of police work. They decided that it was likely that
an officer could develop a reasonable suspicion that a suspect was armed
and dangerous long before the officer would have probable cause to arrest
such an individual. As a result, the court felt that it would be
unreasonable to prevent an officer from taking necessary measures to ensure
his safety and the safety of other in the area.
However, the Court pointed out that the taking of such actions
must be based on specific and articulable facts, a simple hunch would not
be sufficient. Furthermore, the scope of the frisk must be strictly
tied to and justified by the circumstances which made such a frisk
necessary. Additionally, the Court pointed out that they still hold the
police must obtain a warrant whenever practically possible.