Terry vs.

Ohio
Facts1.

Petitioner Terry

convicted of carrying concealed weapon2.

Terrys apprehension
a.

Officer McFadden patrolling the street/downtownb.

Terry and his companion, Chilton


caught McFaddens attention
i.

Unable to say precisely what first drew his eyes to themii.

Developed routine habits of observation over the years (work)c.

Terry & Chiltons suspicious moves
i.

Walked towards a store, stared at the store window, conversed with anotherpersonii.

Routine repeated a number of timesd.

Officer suspected that Terry might be up to something & they may have a gun

decidedthat the situation was ripe for direct actione.

Officer approached Terryi.

Identified himself as a police officerii.

Asked their names

response: mumbled somethingf.

Officer grabbed Terry

position that they were facing each other

officer patted down
the outside of Terrys clothing
i.

He completely removed Terrys overcoat, removed a revolver from the pocket
ii.

Ordered all 3 men to face the wall with their hands raisediii.

Patted down outside clothing of Chilton & other man

discovered anotherrevolver from Chilton; none from the other maniv.

Claims that he never placed his hands beneath their outer garmentsg.

Officer asked store owner to call the police

accused were formally charged3.

Trial court

officer had probable cause to arrest the 3 men before he patted them down forweaponsa.

Officer had the right to pat down the outer garment b.

Distinguished between an investigatory stop and an arrest, and between frisk of outer
clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crimei.

Frisk

essential to performance of dutyc.

Affirmed by CA4.

Issues to be resolveda.

When is a person seized and what constitutes a search?b.

What is reasonable?c.

The stop and frisk of Terry was very reasonabled.

The sole justification for the search is protection of the officer and publicIssue: Whether in all the circumstances of
the on-the-street encounter, his right to personal security wasviolated by an unreasonable search & seizure1.

Seize & search happeneda.

Agreed that Officer seized Terry and subjected him to a search when he took hold of himand patted down the outer
surfaces of his clothing2.

Rejected the idea that the 4
th
amendment does not limit the actions of a police officer;considerations -a.

Government interest


Summary of Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Stop and Frisk
Statement of the case: The D contended that the weapon seized from his person and introduced
into evidence was obtained through an illegal search, under the Fourth Amendment, and that the
trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress.
Procedure below: Petitioner sought review of a judgment from the Supreme Court of Ohio that
affirmed petitioners lower court conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.
Statement of the facts: An officer observed two men standing on a street corner. One would
walk up to a store window, look inside, and return to confer with his companion. This process
was repeated about a dozen times. The suspects talked with a third man, then followed him up
the street. Thinking the suspects were casing the store, the officer confronted the three men
and asked their names. The men mumbled a response, at which time the officer spun one of the
men, Terry (D), around and patted his breast. He found and removed a pistol. D was charged
with carrying a concealed weapon. D moved to suppress this weapon from evidence. The trial
judge denied his motion. The Ohio court of appeals affirmed, and the state supreme court
dismissed Ds appeal.
Legal issue: Is it always unreasonable for a policeman to seize a person and subject him to a
limited search for weapons when there is no probable cause for arrest?
Holding: An officer is justified in conducting a carefully limited search of persons whom he
reasonably suspects to be dangerous in order to discover any weapons which might be used to
assault him or other nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons
seized may be introduced in evidence.
Reasoning: (Warren, C.J.) No. An officer is justified in conducting a carefully limited search of
persons whom he reasonably suspects to be dangerous in order to discover any weapons which
might be used to assault him or other nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest.
The exclusionary rule has limitations as a tool of judicial control. In some contexts, the rule will
not be effective as a deterrent, and will potentially exact a high toll in human injury. The
governments interest in preventing harm must be balanced against the invasion into a persons
privacy. The policeman should use an objective test, and be able to point to specific and
articulable facts which reasonably justify the intrusion. Standard would the facts available to the
officer at the moment of the seizure or the search Warrant a man of reasonable caution in the
belief that the action taken was appropriate? Anything less would invite intrusions upon
constitutionally protected rights! . The Court went on to say that, effective crime prevention and
detection is a governmental interest in appropriate circumstances for purposes of investigating
possible criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest. It would be
unreasonable to require that the policeman take unnecessary risks. He has a need to protect
himself and others in situations where he lacks probable cause for arrest. In this case, nothing in
the conduct of D and his friends dispelled the officers reasonable fear that they were armed.
Affirmed, for P.
Concurrence: (Harlan, J.) An officer must have constitutional grounds on which to insist on an
encounter, to make a forcible stop. The right to frisk must be immediate and automatic if the
reason for the stop is an articulable suspicion of a crime of violence.
Concurrence: (White, J.) A policeman can address questions to anyone on the streets, but
citizens are not obliged to answer, and answers may not be compelled. A refusal to answer is no
basis for an arrest, but it may be a basis for continued observation.
Dissent: (Douglas, J.) Infringement of ones personal liberty is only reasonable if probable cause
is present. The majority gives a policeman more authority to make a seizure and conduct a search
than a judge has.
Critical summary: This case represents a delineation between a reasonable belief and a
reasonable suspicion. Probable cause= reasonable belief. Stop and Frisk = reasonable suspicion
backed by articulable facts.