Terry v. Ohio
The Facts
Police officer McFadden observed three men acting suspiciously outside a store in Cleveland, Ohio, and approached them. When Terry failed to respond satisfactorily to McFadden's questions, the officer frisked Terry's outer clothing and discovered a revolver. Terry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and moved to suppress the gun as evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search.
The Issue
• Whether a police officer may conduct a pat-down search of a suspect's outer clothing without a warrant based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause • What constitutional protections apply to investigative stops that fall short of full arrest
The Rules
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
A police officer may conduct a limited pat-down search of a suspect's outer clothing for weapons based on reasonable suspicion without a warrant or probable cause for arrest, if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous.
The Application
Officer McFadden's observation of three men acting suspiciously outside a store provided the reasonable articulable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop, and Terry's failure to respond satisfactorily to questioning further supported an inference of criminal activity and potential danger. The limited pat-down of Terry's outer clothing for weapons fell within the permissible scope of such a frisk, as it was narrowly tailored to address the officer's legitimate safety concern without the full intrusion of a comprehensive search. Although McFadden lacked probable cause for arrest, the specific facts he observed gave rise to reasonable suspicion sufficient to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's balancing of law enforcement interests against individual liberty, permitting the brief stop and limited search without crossing the threshold to full custodial arrest.
The Conclusion
**The Court held 8-1 that a limited pat-down search of outer clothing for weapons is constitutional when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, even without probable cause for arrest.** This established the "stop and frisk" doctrine, permitting brief investigative stops and limited searches based on reasonable suspicion rather than requiring the higher standard of probable cause.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
The Court held that police may conduct a limited pat-down search of a suspect's outer clothing without a warrant when reasonable suspicion of criminal activity exists.
Facts
Police officer McFadden observed three men acting suspiciously outside a store in Cleveland, Ohio, and approached them. When Terry failed to respond satisfactorily to McFadden's questions, the officer frisked Terry's outer clothing and discovered a revolver. Terry was charged with carrying a concealed weapon and moved to suppress the gun as evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search.
Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment permit a police officer to briefly stop and frisk a person based on reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, short of probable cause for arrest?
Rule
Reasonable articulable suspicion. Specific, objective facts from which an officer can reasonably infer criminal activity. Justifies a brief investigatory stop (Terry stop) and pat-down for weapons even without probable cause. The Fourth Amendment balancing test weighs law enforcement interests against the intrusion on individual liberty; a limited stop based on reasonable suspicion satisfies that balance.
Analysis
Officer McFadden's observation of three men acting suspiciously outside a store provided the reasonable articulable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop, and Terry's failure to respond satisfactorily to questioning further supported an inference of criminal activity and potential danger. The limited pat-down of Terry's outer clothing for weapons fell within the permissible scope of such a frisk, as it was narrowly tailored to address the officer's legitimate safety concern without the full intrusion of a comprehensive search. Although McFadden lacked probable cause for arrest, the specific facts he observed gave rise to reasonable suspicion sufficient to satisfy the Fourth Amendment's balancing of law enforcement interests against individual liberty. Permitting the brief stop and limited search without crossing the threshold to full custodial arrest.
Conclusion
**The Court held 8-1 that a limited pat-down search of outer clothing for weapons is constitutional when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, even without probable cause for arrest.** This established the "stop and frisk" doctrine, permitting brief investigative stops and limited searches based on reasonable suspicion rather than requiring the higher standard of probable cause.
Notes
1968 decision establishing the "reasonable suspicion" standard for brief investigative stops (Terry stops). Bryan uses as Fourth Amendment + reasonable suspicion teaching case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support