Terry Stop and Frisk 1

0.0(0)
Studied by 0 people
call kaiCall Kai
Locked
learnLearn
examPractice Test
spaced repetitionSpaced Repetition
heart puzzleMatch
flashcardsFlashcards
GameKnowt Play
Card Sorting

1/10

encourage image

There's no tags or description

Looks like no tags are added yet.

Last updated 6:23 PM on 7/26/26
Name
Mastery
Learn
Test
Matching
Spaced
Call with Kai
Chat

No analytics yet

Send a link to your students to track their progress

11 Terms

1
New cards

A brief investigative detention is authorized under the standard of…

Reasonable Suspicion. The suspicion must be articulable.

2
New cards

Articulable suspicion for a stop: articulable facts and circumstances that would lead a ________ police officer in light of his/her experience in training…

Reasonable; to suspect that crime is occurring, just occurred, or is about to occur.

3
New cards

True or false: On a detention based off reasonable suspicion alone, an officer is privy to a free search of a subject.

False

4
New cards

Terry v Ohio protects your right to…

Safety

5
New cards

if someone is armed, and therefore dangerous, you are not safe to conduct…

your investigation

6
New cards

According to LEOKA, The majority of officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire are shot between how many feet away from their assailant?

0-6 feet

7
New cards

A pat down or frisk is a protective and _____ search of the outer clothing to locate _____.

limited; weapons

8
New cards

Pat downs and frisks are NEVER conducted in order to find…

evidence

9
New cards

What is the equation for a Terry Stop and Frisk?

reasonable articulable suspicion + Armed, and therefore dangerous

10
New cards

What was Minnesota v Dickerson (1993)?

Decided that you can seize contraband on a Terry Stop and Frisk IF you keep the scope of the search limited to weapons AND the item is IMMEDIATELY identifiable/recognizable as contraband, AND do not further explore or manipulate the item to render your decision

11
New cards

What was Harrell v Commonwealth (1999)?

Court ruled that the pat-down (frisk) of the passenger, Harrell, was unreasonable because the police officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that Harrell was armed and dangerous