Terry vs. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

Terry vs. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968) 

 
FACTS:

• Cleveland, Ohio detective McFadden was on a downtown beat that he had been patrolling for many years when he observed two strangers (Terry and another man, Chilton) at a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who thereafter left swiftly. 

 

• Suspecting the two men of ‘casing a job, a stick-up’, the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men mumbled something, whereupon McFadden spun Terry around, patted down his outside clothing, and felt in his overcoat pocket – but was unable to remove – a pistol. He removed Terry’s overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton’s outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under Terry’s or Chilton’s outer garments until he felt the guns.

 

• Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons, which was denied by the trial court. Terry eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court to question the admissibility of the gun and his resulting conviction.

 
ISSUE:
Whether or not the search and seizure were validly done in accordance with the 4th amendment.
 
RULING:
Yes. The search is valid.
​
Under the Fourth Amendment, it provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
The Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it is the duty of an officer to investigate suspicious behavior and prevent crime. The Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior."

The Court found that the searches were undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.
Moreover, this case does not provide blanket authority to intrude on an individual’s right to be left alone, nor does it allow such intrusion based on a police offers inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur or is in progress. However, it does radically expand police authority to investigate crimes where there is a reasonable basis for suspicion.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and set a precedent that allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals without probable cause for an arrest, providing that the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk.