Terry v. Ohio
Citation: 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
Facts
Detective Martin McFadden, a veteran officer, observed John Terry and companions repeatedly walking back and forth in front of a store in a manner consistent with casing it for robbery. McFadden stopped Terry, patted down the outside of his clothing, and found a concealed weapon. Terry moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that any stop and frisk required probable cause.
Issue
Whether police may stop and briefly detain a person and conduct a limited pat-down for weapons based on less than probable cause — specifically, based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that a police officer may conduct a brief investigatory stop when the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot, and may conduct a limited pat-down for weapons if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous.
Rule
Reasonable suspicion — less than probable cause, but more than a mere hunch — based on specific articulable facts justifies a brief investigatory stop (Terry stop). A limited weapons frisk requires a reasonable belief the person is armed and presently dangerous.
Significance
Terry created the “stop and frisk” doctrine and the reasonable suspicion standard, which now governs a vast category of police-citizen encounters short of arrest. It is one of the most consequential and controversial Fourth Amendment decisions, central to debates about racial profiling, broken-windows policing, and the militarization of police.