Terry v. Ohio

Background

A plain-clothed Cleveland detective watched two men (Terry and Chilton) pacing and repeatedly peering into a store window for about 10–12 minutes. The officer, with many years of experience, suspected they were "casing" the store for a robbery. He followed them, identified himself, asked for their names, and when the men mumbled he grabbed and patted down Terry’s outer clothing and felt a pistol. He removed the gun, arrested them, and the weapons were used at trial. State courts denied suppression; the Supreme Court reviewed the Fourth Amendment question.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether a brief seizure and a pat-down for weapons can be reasonable without probable cause to arrest. It held that officers may act when they can point to specific, articulable facts that would make a reasonably prudent officer suspect the person is armed and dangerous. Such a frisk must be limited to the outer clothing and aimed only at finding weapons, not a general search for evidence. On these facts the officer’s observations, experience, and the men’s conduct justified the limited intrusion, and the conviction was affirmed.

Real world impact

The decision gives police a narrow power to protect themselves during street investigations when they reasonably suspect danger. It allows weapons found in a lawful frisk to be used at trial. The ruling is fact-dependent and not a license for broad searches; each stop and frisk must be judged on its own facts and limited scope.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan (concurring) stressed that a frisk follows from a lawful forcible stop and is automatic when suspicion of a violent crime exists; Justice White agreed but noted brief detention for questioning; Justice Douglas dissented, arguing probable cause should be required.