Also known as: stop-and-frisk · stops and frisks · stopped and frisked · Terry stop · Terry frisk · pat-down search
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A police procedure authorizing an officer to briefly detain a person for investigation and to conduct a limited pat-down of outer clothing for weapons when the officer possesses reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts that the person is armed and dangerous or engaged in criminal activity.
Sarah Sullivan received a call from an informant who accurately described a suspect's upcoming route and actions near a known drug corner. Officers observed the suspect follow the exact predicted path and movements. They detained the suspect briefly and frisked for weapons based on the tip's demonstrated reliability.
Sofia Stern received an anonymous report describing only a person's clothing and location at a bus stop. Officers approached and frisked the individual solely on that description without any predictive details or corroboration of criminal conduct. The frisk yielded no weapon and the evidence was suppressed.
Seth Shapiro, a veteran officer, watched Selena Singh repeatedly scan a jewelry store entrance and adjust a bulky item under her coat near closing time. Drawing on patterns from prior robberies, Shapiro detained Singh and conducted a protective frisk that revealed a handgun.
Sasha Stone was stopped after an officer saw him repeatedly reach into his pocket in a high-crime area. The officer immediately thrust a hand into the pocket rather than conducting an outer-clothing pat-down and recovered narcotics. The search was ruled invalid because it exceeded the protective purpose.
In March 1965, New York City police officer Anthony Martin observed appellant Sibron over an eight-hour period in the vicinity of 742 Broadway in Brooklyn. During this time, Martin saw Sibron speaking with six to eight known narcotics addicts but did not overhear the conversations or see any objects pass between them. Later in the evening, after Sibron entered a restaurant and spoke with three more addicts, Martin approached him, directed him outside, and reached into Sibron's pocket to seize several glassine envelopes containing heroin. On July 10, 1964, Mount Vernon police officer Samuel Lasky, while at home in his apartment building where he had lived for twelve years, heard noises at his door and observed two men he did not recognize tiptoeing in the hallway. After the men fled down the stairs upon Lasky emerging from his apartment armed, Lasky pursued and apprehended appellant Peters between the fourth and fifth floors. Lasky then frisked Peters and removed a plastic envelope containing burglar's tools from his pocket. Both Sibron and Peters were charged with crimes based on the seized evidence. They moved to suppress the items prior to trial on Fourth Amendment grounds. After the trial courts denied the motions, both pleaded guilty while preserving their right to appeal the suppression rulings. The Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, upholding the searches under New York's stop-and-frisk statute. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases to address the constitutional questions presented by the application of the statute. Sibron received a six-month sentence and was released after serving his term before his appeal could be fully processed through the state courts. He was arrested on March 9, 1965, remained in jail due to indigency until his sentence expired on July 10, 1965, and could not obtain bail pending appeal under state law. Delays in the New York court system meant his case reached the Court of Appeals only after release.
View caseSabrina Shah was stopped for erratic driving at night. The officer saw a bulge under the driver's seat and conducted a limited search of the passenger compartment for weapons before allowing her to reenter the vehicle. The frisk of the area was upheld as a protective measure during the encounter.
In a rural area of Michigan one evening shortly after midnight, Deputies Howell and Lewis observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. The officers observed the car turning down a side road, where it swerved off into a shallow ditch. The officers stopped to investigate. Long, the only occupant of the automobile, met the deputies at the rear of the car, which was protruding from the ditch onto the road. The door on the driver's side of the vehicle was left open. Deputy Howell requested Long to produce his operator's license, but he did not respond. After the request was repeated, Long produced his license. Long again failed to respond when Howell requested him to produce the vehicle registration. After another repeated request, Long, who Howell thought appeared to be under the influence of something, turned from the officers and began walking toward the open door of the vehicle. The officers followed Long and both observed a large hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver's side of the car. The officers then stopped Long's progress and subjected him to a Terry protective patdown, which revealed no weapons. Long and Deputy Lewis then stood by the rear of the vehicle while Deputy Howell shined his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, but did not actually enter it. The purpose of Howell's action was to search for other weapons. The officer noticed that something was protruding from under the armrest on the front seat. He knelt in the vehicle and lifted the armrest. He saw an open pouch on the front seat, and upon flashing his light on the pouch, determined that it contained what appeared to be marihuana. After Deputy Howell showed the pouch and its contents to Deputy Lewis, Long was arrested for possession of marihuana. A further search of the interior of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed neither more contraband nor the vehicle registration. The officers decided to impound the vehicle. Deputy Howell opened the trunk, which did not have a lock, and discovered inside it approximately 75 pounds of marihuana. The Barry County Circuit Court denied Long's motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the interior of the car and its trunk. He was subsequently convicted of possession of marihuana. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long's conviction, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the sole justification of the Terry search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case. The marihuana found in Long's trunk was considered by the court below to be the fruit of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the authority of a police officer to protect himself by conducting a Terry-type search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle during the lawful investigatory stop of the occupant of the vehicle.
View caseSentinel Security guards detained a suspect after a brief stop and found no weapon during the pat-down. Officers then searched the suspect's vehicle for evidence of a separate crime without additional justification. The vehicle search was suppressed because it exceeded the narrow safety rationale of the frisk.
An anonymous tip supports reasonable suspicion when it contains predictive details about the suspect's future conduct that demonstrate inside knowledge and are corroborated by police observation. A bare description of appearance and location without such predictive elements is insufficient even if accurate.
The officer must have reasonable suspicion that the detainee is armed and dangerous. The frisk is limited to a pat-down of outer clothing for weapons and must be justified by specific facts rather than a generalized concern for safety.
Officers may draw on their training and experience to interpret seemingly innocuous conduct as indicative of criminal activity when viewed in the totality of the circumstances. Inferences that would not be obvious to a layperson can support a stop and frisk when grounded in the officer's specialized knowledge.
Yes when the officer possesses specific information that a weapon is located in a precise spot such as a waistband. The direct reach is permissible if it is no more intrusive than necessary to secure the suspected weapon and is motivated by officer safety.