Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States, individuals have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend. IV. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant be upon probable cause supported with “an oath or affirmation” that describes the place, person, and things to be searched with particularity. Id. However, the Amendment does not explain if a limited seizure and limited search may be allowed, and if so, whether it can only be allowed through probable cause. Terry v. Ohio answers this question, discussing situations where there is a law enforcement interest in crime control and personal safety when officers interact with individuals potentially violating the law as a construction injury lawyer can share.
In Terry, an officer patrolled downtown Cleveland in plain clothes when he saw two individuals standing on the street corner. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 5 (1968). The officer testified that he had seen several crimes within the downtown vicinity during his extensive experience as a law enforcement officer. Id. The officer then describes the two individuals’ behaviors, making several circuits in front of the same store window and talking with another individual. Id. at 6. The officer became suspicious that they were “casing a job” and they may potentially have a gun. Id. The officer then approached the men, eventually grabbing defendant Terry to pat down the outside of his clothing. Id. at 7. He found a gun on two of the three individuals during this pat-down, including defendant Terry. Id. The officer stated that he only touched their “outer garments” until he felt the guns and patted down the individuals only to see if they had weapons on them. Id. Terry and the other individuals with the weapon were only charged with carrying concealed weapons. Id.
The Supreme Court first had to determine whether the officer searched and seized the individuals, and the Court determined that the officer did search and seize them. Id. at 16; 19. The following issue the Court dealt with is whether the search and seizure was unreasonable. Id. at 19. The Court held that “there must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the individual for a crime.” Id. at 28. Ultimately, the Court decided that where an officer observes unusual conduct, leading him to conclude that criminal activity may be “reasonably afoot,” the individuals may be armed or dangerous, he is entitled to protect himself and others in the area with a “limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.” Id.
Terry’s focus allows officers to conduct a limited search based on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, that an individual may be armed and dangerous. While a Terry stop is considered a search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, this doctrine allows an officer to proceed without the probable cause requirement dictated by the Fourth Amendment. The officer is limited to a search of the individual’s outer clothing. Nonetheless, an individual’s privacy interest is outweighed where an officer has reason to believe that an individual is armed and dangerous, primarily drawing from the totality of the circumstances and the officer’s reasonable inferences based on their experience as law enforcement. If you have further questions about this topic, contact a lawyer near you.
Thanks to Eglet Adams for their insight on Terry v. Ohio stop and frisks.