Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision concerning search and seizure, specifically in the context of street-level police encounters with the public resulting in a stop and frisk. The case arose following the actions of Martin McFadden, a Cleveland police detective, in conducting a search to prevent a possible armed robbery. On the afternoon of October 31, 1963, McFadden, a 39-year veteran of the police department, observed three men who he believed were about to commit an armed robbery. The men, one of whom was John Terry, gave an unsatisfactory response to McFadden's inquiry as to their names and business in the area, and McFadden then conducted a pat-down search of Terry's jacket in search of a weapon. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the officer had the authority to conduct a limited pat-down for weapons for officer safety because the suspects were observed engaging in suspicious behavior that warranted inquiry by the police. The stop-and-frisk tactic, based on a standard of evidence that amounts to less than probable cause, often accompanies proactive police efforts in high-crime areas that tend to be populated by the poor as well as racial and ethnic minorities.

The subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision defined the authority of police officers in conducting pat-down searches in situations where there is reasonable belief criminal behavior is in progress. The Court held that stopping someone for brief questioning and conducting a pat-down search did constitute a search as defined by the Fourth Amendment; however, it held that such a stop-and-frisk did not necessarily violate the constitutional ban of unreasonable searches and seizures. The police may search the person during this threshold inquiry if the officer has reasonable suspicion the person may have a weapon and his or her responses to the officer's questions have not assuaged that concern.

The Court was unwilling to create a category of police actions, namely the stop-and-frisk, that did not have to meet the constitutional standard of probable cause. The Court's analysis of whether McFadden violated Terry's constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures focused squarely on whether the officer's actions were reasonable at the inception of the search and whether McFadden's actions were reasonably consistent in scope to the circumstances that provided the justification for the initial search. The purpose of the frisk was viewed as detecting concealed weapons on the person of interest rather than evidence of a crime. The Court rejected the contention that a pat-down frisk is a petty indignity for the individual subjected to the search. The Court also noted the potential detrimental impact which the practice of stop-and-frisks may have on police-community relations that may disproportionately impact poor communities as well as racial and ethnic minorities. Nevertheless, it held that when an officer suspects that a person may be armed, it is reasonable to search for weapons because of the danger to the officer or to others.