Criminal Procedure: Stop and Frisk and the Terry v. Ohio Standard
Overview of Stop and Frisk (Chapter 4)
Introduction to Chapter 4: This chapter is described as perhaps the most important of the semester, focusing on the legal principles of stop and frisk and the evolution of the concept of "reasonable suspicion."
Core Legal Authority: The primary case discussed is Terry v. Ohio. This case is the foundation for various interpretations of police authority and individual rights regarding brief detentions.
Reasonable Suspicion vs. The Constitution:
The concept of "reasonable suspicion" is not explicitly mentioned in the Fourth Amendment, the Bill of Rights, or the U.S. Constitution.
While the word "reason" appears in the Fourth Amendment, "reasonable suspicion" is a judicially created standard that establishes the limits and allowances of government—individual interaction.
Review of Search and Seizure Principles (Chapter 3)
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy (Katz v. United States):
The Case: Involved a man using a public phone booth that was bugged by the government. The Supreme Court ruled that this bugging required probable cause and that the government's action violated the Fourth Amendment.
Fundamental Principle: The Fourth Amendment protects persons, not places. The protection follows the individual wherever they go.
The Two-Prong Test:
Subjective: The individual must have an actual expectation of privacy.
Objective: Society must be prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable.
Plain View Doctrine:
Definition: Evidence obtained by an officer’s ordinary senses—seeing, touching, smelling, or hearing—while the officer is in a place they have a legal right to be.
Application: If an officer pulls someone over for speeding and smells marijuana or sees a knife, they are entitled to follow up. This interaction is not considered a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
Limitations: While officers cannot ignore evidence in plain view, there are limits on going beyond what the initial plain sense observation allowed.
Seizure/Arrest:
Objective Test: An arrest occurs when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave.
Standard: This is an objective measurement based on what society agrees a reasonable person would feel, rather than the specific feelings of the individual involved.
Show of Authority Seizure:
Definition: A submission to the display of official force.
Legal Implication: If a citizen submits to the police officer's show of authority, the Fourth Amendment applies. If the citizen does not submit, the legal status of the interaction is less clear.
Historical Context of Stop and Frisk
Origins: U.S. law is rooted in English law and the experiences of English colonists.
The 1960s Transition: Prior to the 1960s, there were fewer legal challenges to police stops and arrests. However, the United States became a highly urbanized and industrialized country during this decade.
The "Gray Area": Police frequently encountered situations where they had less than probable cause to arrest, yet the behavior was "too suspicious to ignore." This created a need for a legal balance between government interests and individual liberty.
Incorporation Doctrine: During the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states through the Due Process Clause. This meant the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures became applicable to local and state police actions.
Pre-1960s Standard: The system relied on a general reasonableness test derived from the Fourth Amendment, balancing government versus individual interests and searching for an objective basis for police actions.
Terry v. Ohio (1968): The Landmark Case
Significance: Widely considered one of the leading cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. It remains fundamentally unchanged and is a cornerstone of criminal law.
Facts of the Case:
Location: Cleveland, Ohio.
Observation: A police officer observed three men (including a man named Terry) walking back and forth in front of a store (likely a jewelry store) approximately 12 times.
Intervention: The officer stopped the men, questioned them, and frisked Terry. The officer discovered a gun and arrested Terry for illegal possession.
Challenge: Terry argued the stop and frisk violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked probable cause for a search.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Street Application: The Fourth Amendment applies to police interactions on the street, not just inside a home.
Escalating Set of Flexible Responses: The court argued that police need flexibility to respond to crime in urban environments. As an officer sees suspicious activity, they should have the leeway to investigate; as the situation develops, their response can escalate accordingly.
Necessity of Limitations: Despite the need for flexibility, the court emphasized severe requirements for limiting this power to prevent abuse and decrease social tensions.
Scope of the Search: A stop and frisk must be reasonably tied to the circumstances that made the initiation of the stop permissible. Officers are limited to investigating the specific suspicion that triggered the stop.
The Dissent: Justice Douglas (implied) argued that the Fourth Amendment only mentions "probable cause" and does not contain the phrase "reasonable suspicion." The dissent argued that to allow a lower standard, the Constitution would need to be formally changed.
Legal Standards and Definitions in Stop and Frisk
The Terry Stop:
Definition: A brief, on-the-spot detention to "freeze the situation" to determine whether to investigate further, arrest the individual, or take no action.
Nature: It is not a full-blown arrest.
Reasonable Suspicion:
Definition: Facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to suspect a crime has been, is being, or will be committed.
Contrast with Probable Cause: The definition is identical to probable cause, except probable cause uses the word belief instead of suspect. Belief is a higher threshold than suspicion.
Articulable Facts:
Standard: Officers must be able to point to specific, identifiable facts to provide an objective basis for the stop.
Anti-Hunch Rule: A stop cannot be based on a "hunch" or a feeling. An officer must be able to explain, for example, why a person’s behavior or appearance (e.g., a nail in a pocket and blood on a finger) was odd and suggested criminal activity.
The Frisk (Search for Weapons):
A frisk is only justified if an officer has an articulable, objective reason to believe a person is armed.
Officers may draw upon their professional experience. In Terry, the officer’s experience suggested that men casing a store for robbery would likely be armed.
Supreme Court Interpretations Post-Terry
Illinois v. Wardlow:
Issue: Is running from the police enough for reasonable suspicion?
Ruling: Sudden flight in a high-crime area constitutes reasonable suspicion because it allows for a common-sense conclusion that the person is involved in wrongdoing.
Dissent: Argued there are many reasons a person might run from the police that do not involve criminal activity.
Alabama v. White:
Issue: Anonymous tips.
Ruling: Reasonable suspicion can arise from less reliable information than probable cause, but an anonymous tip alone is usually insufficient.
Requirement: The tip must be corroborated by police observation. In this case, police confirmed the tip by watching the suspect follow the exact path and behaviors described by the tipster.
Florida v. J.L.:
Issue: A tip regarding a young man in a "plaid shirt" with a gun.
Ruling: The Court held this was not sufficient. An "indicative of reliability" is required; simply matching a description of clothing is not enough without seeing the person engage in suspicious behavior or seeing the weapon.
Drug Courier Profiles:
Weaver Case (8th Circuit): Reasonable suspicion was found where a person matched a profile (e.g., specific gang activity patterns from LA to Kansas City).
United States v. Sokolow (1989):
The suspect bought a ticket with cash, appeared nervous, and traveled to Miami for a short trip.
Ruling: While individual acts might be innocent (paying cash, being nervous), the "totality of circumstances" can indicate reasonable suspicion.
Definition: A drug courier profile is a list of general characteristics the government associates with drug dealing based on past experience.
United States v. Sharpe:
Issue: Duration of the stop (40-minute detention).
Ruling: There is no automatic time limit on a Terry stop. The duration is determined by whether the police are acting diligently in their investigation.
People v. Courtney:
Issue: Moving a suspect to the station.
Facts: Police stopped a suspicious man on a university campus during a period of high tension between police and protesters. A crowd gathered, and police moved the suspect to the station to perform the search.
Ruling: The removal was justified based on the totality of the facts and the need for safety given the mounting tensions.
Summary of the Reasonableness Test
To evaluate a stop and frisk, courts apply the following criteria:
Governmental Interest: Does the search or stop further a legitimate government interest?
Balancing Test: Does the government's interest outweigh the individual's privacy, liberty, and property rights?
Objective Basis: Is the invasion supported by sufficient objective facts (articulable facts), rather than just a hunch?
Totality of Circumstances: The entire situation—including location, time, and behavior—must be considered case-by-case.