Terry V. Ohio Stop And Frisk Analysis
What Is Terry v. Ohio? (1968)
Facts:
Detective McFadden saw Terry and two other men acting suspiciously, possibly casing a store for robbery. He stopped and frisked them, finding weapons on two men.
Legal Question:
Does a police officer need probable cause to stop and frisk someone, or is reasonable suspicion enough?
Supreme Court Holding:
Police can stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous. This is a lesser standard than probable cause.
Significance:
Created the “Terry stop” — a brief investigatory stop and limited frisk for officer safety.
Key Related Cases
1. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Stop and frisk allowed on reasonable suspicion.
Frisk limited to searching for weapons only.
Balances public safety and Fourth Amendment rights.
2. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Facts:
Police shot a fleeing suspect suspected of burglary.
Relation:
While not about frisk, this case limits police use of force during stops, emphasizing reasonableness and protecting Fourth Amendment rights.
3. Illinois v. Wardlow (2000)
Facts:
Man fled police in a high-crime area; officers stopped and frisked him.
Holding:
Flight in a high-crime area can contribute to reasonable suspicion justifying a stop.
Significance:
Clarifies what factors contribute to reasonable suspicion.
4. Florida v. J.L. (2000)
Facts:
Anonymous tip said a young man at a bus stop was carrying a gun; police frisked him without observing suspicious behavior.
Holding:
An anonymous tip alone, without corroboration, does not justify a stop and frisk.
Significance:
Limits stop-and-frisk based on anonymous tips.
5. Navarette v. California (2014)
Facts:
Police stopped a driver based on an anonymous 911 call reporting reckless driving.
Holding:
Anonymous 911 calls can contribute to reasonable suspicion if reliable and detailed.
Significance:
Refines the standard from Florida v. J.L. regarding anonymous tips.
6. United States v. Arvizu (2002)
Facts:
Border Patrol stopped a driver based on various suspicious factors.
Holding:
Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of circumstances; no single factor is dispositive.
Significance:
Emphasizes holistic analysis for reasonable suspicion.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Point | Outcome/Rule | Importance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terry v. Ohio (1968) | Reasonable suspicion justifies stop & frisk | Stop & frisk valid if officer reasonably suspects danger/crime | Foundation of stop-and-frisk law |
| Tennessee v. Garner (1985) | Limits police use of deadly force on fleeing suspects | Deadly force only if suspect dangerous to others | Protects Fourth Amendment rights |
| Illinois v. Wardlow (2000) | Flight in high-crime area = reasonable suspicion | Stop and frisk justified in this context | Clarifies factors for suspicion |
| Florida v. J.L. (2000) | Anonymous tip alone insufficient | Cannot stop & frisk solely on uncorroborated tip | Limits use of anonymous tips |
| Navarette v. California (2014) | Reliable anonymous 911 call can justify stop | 911 calls given more weight than anonymous tips | Refines anonymous tip rules |
| United States v. Arvizu (2002) | Totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion | All factors combined must be considered | Holistic approach to suspicion |
What to Take Away?
Stop-and-frisk requires reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
Frisk is limited to searching for weapons for officer safety.
Factors include behavior, location, flight, and reliable tips.
Anonymous tips alone are usually not enough unless reliable or corroborated.
Courts balance officer safety with protecting constitutional rights.
RELATED Blog
0 comments