Also known as:Terry stop · Terry frisk · stop and frisk
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A brief investigatory detention of a person by police based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Officers may also conduct a limited pat-down for weapons when they reasonably believe the person is armed and dangerous.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Tip Predicts Suspect Location
Thaddeus Tran receives an anonymous call describing a man in a red jacket who will exit a specific building at noon and meet a contact. Officers observe the exact sequence unfold and detain Tran. The accurate prediction of future conduct supplies the indicia of reliability needed to justify the stop.
Plain Feel During Patdown
Tamara Tan is lawfully patted down during a Terry stop. The officer feels a small rock-like object in her pocket whose incriminating character is immediately apparent. The officer seizes the item without further manipulation, rendering the seizure valid under the plain-feel doctrine.
Timothy Tang loiters near a fenced substation at night. A utility worker reports that Tang bragged about carrying a pistol in his waistband. Drawing on experience with similar threats, the officer detains Tang and reaches directly to the described location to secure the weapon.
Vehicle Search For Weapons
Tracy Torres is stopped for speeding and appears intoxicated. Officers observe a large bulge under the front seat and conduct a limited search of the passenger compartment for weapons. The protective search yields marijuana that is later admitted at trial.
Michigan v. Long463 U.S. 1032 (1983)
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.
Trevor Tate and a companion pace in front of a store, peer inside repeatedly, and confer. An experienced officer concludes they are casing the premises for a robbery. The officer stops the men and pats them down, discovering revolvers that support later charges.
Terry v. Ohio392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
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.
Tyrone Tran flees headlong upon seeing officers in a high-crime area. The unprovoked flight combined with the location supplies reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop. Officers detain Tran and recover a firearm during the ensuing frisk.
4 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What quantum of suspicion justifies a Terry stop?
Reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot. The standard is lower than probable cause and is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
Supporting sources
May an officer reach directly into a pocket during a Terry frisk?
Yes when the officer possesses specific information that a weapon is hidden in that precise location. The intrusion must remain narrowly tailored to officer safety.
Supporting sources
Does presence in a high-crime area alone create reasonable suspicion?
No. Additional specific facts are required. Unprovoked flight or other suspicious conduct may combine with the location to satisfy the standard.
Supporting sources
Can an anonymous tip support a Terry stop?
Yes when the tip carries sufficient indicia of reliability, such as accurate prediction of the suspect's future movements that suggest inside knowledge.
Supporting sources
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
…roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia , 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States , 116 U.S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States , 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928)…
Criminal Law Constitutional ProtectionsConstitutional protections of accused persons · Arrest, search, and seizure [Fourth Amendment]NEXTGENFoundational