Terry vs Ohio

Doctrine:

An officer may perform a search for weapons without a warrant, even without
probable cause, when the officer reasonably believes that the person may be
armed and dangerous.

Facts:

An officer observed two men, the petitioner Terry, and Chilton, 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
men also spoke to a third man whom they eventually followed up the street.
Given the nature of their behavior, and thinking that the men were casing the
store for potential robbery, the officer confronted them and asked for their
names. The men mumbled a response, at which time the officer spun the
petitioner around and patted his breast. During this process of quick frisking, he
found a concealed pistol, and removed the same. Thus, the petitioner was
charged with carrying a concealed weapon. Thereafter, the petitioner moved to
suppress this weapon from evidence. However, the TC, as affirmed by the CA,
denied his motion.

Issue:

WON the search for weapon was unreasonable?

Held & Rationale:

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 governments interest in preventing harm must be
balanced against the invasion into a persons privacy. But the policeman should
use an objective test, and be able to point to specific and articulable facts, which
reasonably justify the intrusion. 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
petitioner and his friends dispelled the officers reasonable fear that they were
armed.

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.