Facts
- A Cleveland police detective observed two men repeatedly walking the same route, pausing to look into a store window, and conferring on a corner; a third man briefly joined and left.
- Based on the repeated conduct and his experience, the detective suspected the men were preparing to rob the store.
- The detective approached, identified himself, and asked the men their names; they gave indistinct responses.
- The detective turned Terry around and patted down Terry’s outer clothing, feeling what he believed was a gun in Terry’s overcoat pocket.
- The detective moved the men into a nearby store, removed Terry’s overcoat, and retrieved a revolver.
- The detective frisked the others, finding a revolver on one companion and nothing on the third man.
- Terry and a codefendant were arrested and charged under Ohio law with carrying concealed weapons.
- The trial court denied a motion to suppress, treating the encounter as an investigatory stop and a limited protective frisk rather than an arrest and full search; convictions were affirmed in state court.
Issues
- Whether a brief on-street detention for investigation constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether a limited pat-down of outer clothing for weapons constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment.
- Whether an officer may conduct an investigatory stop and protective frisk without probable cause to arrest, and if so, what standard governs reasonableness.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held, 8–1, that the Fourth Amendment applies to on-street stops and frisks.
- The Court held that a person is seized when an officer restrains the person’s freedom to walk away.
- The Court held that an officer may briefly stop a person when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot.
- The Court held that an officer may frisk outer clothing for weapons when the officer also reasonably believes the person may be armed and presently dangerous.
- Applying these rules, the Court concluded the detective’s stop and limited frisk were reasonable, and the revolver was admissible; the conviction was affirmed.
Legal Principles
- The Fourth Amendment protects personal security in public as well as in the home; its limits apply to street encounters, not only to arrests and full searches.
- A stop is a seizure and must be reasonable; reasonableness is evaluated objectively based on the facts available to the officer at the time and rational inferences drawn from those facts.
- Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts and permissible inferences; it cannot rest on an unparticularized suspicion or hunch.
- A protective frisk is a distinct, limited search aimed at officer safety, confined to a pat-down of outer clothing to locate weapons, and justified only by a reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous.
- Courts assess reasonableness by weighing the governmental interests in crime prevention and officer safety against the scope of the intrusion on individual liberty.
Conclusion
The Court recognized a limited exception to the probable-cause requirement by permitting brief investigatory stops based on reasonable suspicion and permitting protective weapon frisks when an officer reasonably believes a detained person may be armed and dangerous, so long as the intrusion remains narrowly focused on safety.