stops and frisks

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.

On October 31, 1963, Cleveland police detective Martin McFadden, a 39-year veteran assigned to downtown Cleveland for 30 years, observed John W. Terry and Richard Chilton standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. McFadden took up a post of observation 300 to 400 feet away. He watched as the two men walked back and forth along Huron Road, pausing repeatedly to look in the window of a store before conferring with each other. This pattern repeated roughly a dozen times over ten to twelve minutes. A third man, Katz, joined them briefly before departing, after which Terry and Chilton followed the same path. By this time McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious that the men were casing the store for a robbery and feared they might be armed. McFadden approached the three men in front of Zucker's store, identified himself as a police officer, and asked their names. When they mumbled responses, he grabbed Terry, spun him around, patted down the outer clothing of his overcoat, and felt a pistol in the left breast pocket. He removed a .38-caliber revolver from Terry's pocket and ordered the men into the store, where he similarly frisked Chilton and discovered another revolver while finding no weapons on Katz. Terry and Chilton were arrested and charged with carrying concealed weapons. Prior to trial they moved to suppress the revolvers as the product of an unlawful search. The trial court denied the motion after hearing McFadden's testimony, finding that the officer had reasonable cause to believe the defendants were acting suspiciously and that the frisk was necessary for his protection. After the denial, Terry and Chilton waived jury trial, were convicted, and sentenced to one to three years in the penitentiary. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

On March 1, 1976, a special agent of the Illinois Bureau of Investigation presented a complaint for a search warrant to an Illinois circuit court judge. The complaint recited that a reliable informant had observed fifteen to twenty-five tin-foil packets on the person of the bartender Greg and behind the bar at the Aurora Tap Tavern over the weekend of February 28 and 29. The informant had seen such packets on Greg and in a drawer on at least ten other occasions. The informant had been told by Greg that he would have heroin for sale on March 1. On the strength of this complaint the judge issued a warrant authorizing the search of the Aurora Tap Tavern and the person of Greg the bartender for heroin, contraband, other controlled substances, money, instrumentalities, and narcotics paraphernalia. In the late afternoon of March 1, 1976, seven or eight officers proceeded to the tavern. Upon entering they announced their purpose and advised all those present that they were going to conduct a cursory search for weapons. One officer then patted down each of the nine to thirteen customers present while the remaining officers searched the premises. The officer who frisked the patrons found Ventura Ybarra standing by a pinball machine. In the first patdown the officer felt a cigarette pack with objects in it but did not remove it. After completing the process the officer returned to Ybarra two to ten minutes later, relocated and retrieved the pack from Ybarra's pants pocket, and found six tinfoil packets containing a brown powdery substance that later proved to be heroin. Ybarra was subsequently indicted by an Illinois grand jury for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress the contraband seized from his person. At the suppression hearing the State sought to justify the search by reference to an Illinois statute authorizing officers to detain and search persons found on premises being searched pursuant to a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the search had been conducted under the authority of the statute to prevent the disposal or concealment of things described in the warrant. The case proceeded to a bench trial and Ybarra was found guilty. On appeal the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute was not unconstitutional in its application to the facts of the case because the search occurred in a one-room bar where heroin was being sold, the packets could easily have been concealed, and Ybarra was not an innocent stranger having no connection with the premises. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Ybarra's petition for leave to appeal. There followed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.