Stop and frisk rule and the Supreme Court
The "stop and frisk" rule refers to a police practice where officers can briefly detain a person for questioning if they have a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. This practice allows officers to conduct a limited search, or "pat down," of the suspect's clothing for weapons to ensure safety. Established by the Supreme Court in the 1968 case Terry v. Ohio, the ruling set a legal precedent for balancing police investigative authority with individual rights under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. However, the term "reasonable suspicion" was not explicitly defined, leaving some ambiguity in its application.
In recent decades, stop and frisk policies, particularly those implemented by urban police departments, have faced significant criticism for their potential to encourage racial profiling. Notably, in 2013, a federal judge ruled that the New York City police's stop and frisk practices were unconstitutional, highlighting concerns about discriminatory enforcement. The ongoing debate over these policies reflects broader issues surrounding law enforcement practices, civil liberties, and community trust, making it a significant topic in discussions about policing in America.
On this Page
Stop and frisk rule and the Supreme Court
Description: The authority of the police, under certain circumstances, to approach and conduct an investigatory detention of a citizen and a limited search for weapons.
Significance: In a 1968 case, the Supreme Court allowed police to use stop and frisk searches to investigate suspicious activity and to protect the safety of the public and themselves.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable search and seizure by the police without a warrant. The Uniform Arrest Act of 1942 and some state statutes, including a New York law, allowed police officers to briefly detain a person for questioning if they suspected illegal activity and frisk them (run their hands over the outside of the suspect’s clothing) in search of a weapon.
In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court held that police officers can stop a person briefly for the purpose of investigation if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. The Court did not define the term “reasonable suspicion” but placed it somewhere between a vague suspicion and probable cause. The duration of the stop and frisk is limited to the amount of time necessary to either confirm or eliminate the officer’s suspicions about the suspect. The Court also stated that an officer may conduct a limited search or “pat down” of the suspect to ensure their safety and that of the public if they have reason to believe the suspect is armed and dangerous.
The Supreme Court has not heard another case about stop and frisk laws since Terry v. Ohio; however, stop and frisk policies of many urban police forces in the United States came under fire in the twenty-first century as promoting racial profiling. The most famous of these was in 2013, when a federal judge ruled the stop and frisk policies of the New York City police force were unconstitutional.
Bibliography
“Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968).” ACLU of Ohio, 2023, www.acluohio.org/en/cases/terry-v-ohio-392-us-1-1968. Accessed 5 Apr. 2023.
Thompson, Taahira. “NYPD's Infamous Stop-and-Frisk Policy Found Unconstitutional.” Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 12 Aug. 2013, civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-and-frisk-policy-found-unconstitutional/. Accessed 5 Apr. 2023.