Terry v. Ohio: Stop and Frisk Essentials

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures unless justified by a warrant or a recognized exception.
Stop-and-frisk is a recognized exception when police have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed.

The Supreme Court held that police may stop a person and briefly detain them if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that the person may be armed and dangerous.
A limited frisk (pat-down) of the outer clothing is permissible to check for weapons when the officer has reasonable suspicion the person is armed.
The standard is reasonable suspicion, not probable cause.
If a weapon is discovered during a lawful frisk, it may be seized as evidence.

Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts, not a mere hunch.
The frisk’s scope is limited to checking for weapons; further search requires additional justification.

Officer observed Terry and Chilton repeatedly peering into a store window, appearing to casing for a robbery.
He approached them, questioned them, and conducted a pat-down of outer clothing.
A pistol was felt and seized from Terry; a second pistol was later found on Chilton.
The stop-and-frisk led to charges; the case established the constitutional basis for such police action when justified by reasonable suspicion.

Weapons found during a lawful stop and frisk are admissible as evidence.
The stop and frisk must be justified by reasonable suspicion and properly limited in scope and duration.

Reasonable suspicion = lower threshold than probable cause; sufficient to justify a stop and potential frisk for weapons.
Probable cause = needed for full search or arrest without a warrant.