TERRY V. OHIO 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
FACTS:
l One night, while Officer McFadden was patrolling on plain clothes, he observed two suspicious looking men who keeps on looking back the windows of a store.
l The police officer suspect that this might be a “casing job or a stick up”. After 10 to 12 minutes of observing them, the police officer finally approached the two men and one man who joined them later.
l The officer asked for their identifications but when one of them mumbled something, police officer McFadden grabbed herein petitioner Terry, spun him around so that they were facing the other two, with Terry between McFadden and the others, and patted down the outside of his clothing.
l The patting was done outside a store named Zucker. During the frisking, the officer felt a pistol. Therefore, the officer ordered them to go inside the store and to face the wall with their hands raised. Did and there patted their outside clothing for concealed weapons.
l The officer confiscated 2 guns from Terry and Chilton but no weapons for Katz, the 3rd guy who joined them lately.
l Later on, a police wagon came after the store owner called for help and took all three men to the station, where Chilton and Terry were formally charged with carrying concealed weapons.
l Judge Bernard Friedman found the men guilty and ruled that, given the suspicious nature of their behavior and McFadden’s concern for his safety, the decision to frisk was permissible.
l The appeals court affirmed the decision.
l Terry appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967.
ISSUE:
WON the search and seizure were validly done in accordance with the 4th amendment.
HELD:
YES. The search is valid.
Under the Fourth Amendment, it provides that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."
The Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it is the duty of an officer to investigate suspicious behavior and prevent crime.
The Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior."
The Court found that the searches were undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation.
Moreover, this case does not provide blanket authority to intrude on an individual’s right to be left alone, nor does it allow such intrusion based on a police offers inarticulate hunch that a crime is about to occur or is in progress. However, it does radically expand police authority to investigate crimes where there is a reasonable basis for suspicion.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and set a precedent that allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals without probable cause for an arrest, providing that the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk.