Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio is a landmark Supreme Court case that established the legal framework for "stop and frisk" procedures by police officers. In this 1968 decision, the Court upheld the actions of a police officer who stopped and pat down two individuals suspected of planning a robbery, leading to the discovery of firearms. The ruling clarified that police could conduct brief stops and limited searches based on "reasonable suspicion," even in the absence of a warrant or probable cause, which are typically required under the Fourth Amendment. This decision has had significant implications for law enforcement practices and civil liberties, sparking ongoing discussions about the balance between public safety and individual rights. Dissenting opinions, such as that of Justice William O. Douglas, raised concerns about the potential for intrusive policing practices. Terry v. Ohio remains a crucial reference point for debates on police authority, constitutional rights, and the impacts of stop and frisk policies, particularly in diverse communities.
On this Page
Terry v. Ohio
Date: June 10, 1968
Citation: 392 U.S. 1
Issues: Stop and frisk rule; search and seizure
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld stop and frisk procedures in the first of a long series of cases.
Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for an eight-member majority, upheld Terry’s conviction and an Ohio law allowing stop and frisk procedures. These procedures allow a police officer to stop people on the street and pat them down to see if they are carrying weapons. In Terry, the police officer patted down two persons he suspected of “casing” a store before robbing it. The men had paced back and forth in front of a store a dozen times in front of the police before the officer stopped them. Finding both men armed with pistols, the officer arrested them. The Supreme Court ruled it was proper to admit the guns into evidence in the trial. This was the first in a series of cases dealing with various stop and frisk procedures. Justice William O. Douglas dissented, finding the police behavior intrusive.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment requires officers of the law to have a warrant that describes “the place to be searched” and “the person or things to be seized” before conducting a search or seizure. Furthermore, the amendment states that the warrant must be based on probable cause. The court’s ruling in Terry allowed an exception to the probable cause requirement in the case of searches conducted on the street, and upheld that suspects could be briefly stopped and subjected to a limited frisk, based on the officer’s reasonable suspicion.
Bibliography
Bandes, Susan. “Terry v. Ohio in Hindsight: The Perils of Predicting the Past.” Constitutional Commentary 16.3 (1999): 491. Academic Search Complete. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
Corona, Tiffany D. “A Public Safety Approach: Reconciling Terry with Individual Rights.” McGeorge Law Review 41.4 (2010): 905–28. Academic Search Complete. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
Galiano, Dean. The Fourth Amendment : Unreasonable Search And Seizure. New York: Rosen, 2011. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 13 Jan. 2016.
Lee, Cynthia. The Fourth Amendment: Searchers and Seizures. Amherst: Prometheus, 2011. Print.
McInnis, Thomas N. The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment. Lanham: Lexington, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 13 Jan. 2015.
Simmons, Kami Chavis. “The Legacy of Stop and Frisk: Addressing the Vestiges of a Violent Police Culture.” Wake Forest Law Review 49.3 (2014): 849–72. Legal Source. Web. 13 Jan. 2016.