Isabella Carter
The controversial 'stop and frisk' policy, which allowed police officers to stop, interrogate and search citizens, was deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio (1968). The Court ruled that officers could stop and pat down a suspect if they had a reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed, with the opinion penned by Chief Justice Earl Warren. However, this ruling was later deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge in Floyd v. City of New York (2013), who stated that the NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Date of ruling | June 10, 1968 |
| Case name | Terry v. Ohio |
| Court ruling | Ruled in favor of the state |
| Ruling details | "Stops" and "frisks" are considered "seizures" and "searches" under the Fourth Amendment |
| Dissenting opinion | Justice William O. Douglas |
| Precedent | Set a new, lower standard for warrantless arrests |
| Subsequent rulings | NYPD's stop-and-frisk practices were ruled unconstitutional in 2013 and 2023 |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that 'stop and frisk' fell under the Fourth Amendment
- The Court ruled that officers can stop and pat down a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion
- The Court recognised that 'stop and frisk' is less intrusive than full-blown searches
- The weapons found during 'stop and frisk' were deemed admissible in court
- The Court ruled that 'stop and frisk' does not require a warrant
In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that 'stop and frisk' fell under the Fourth Amendment
On June 10, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that stop and frisk fell under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. In an 8-1 majority ruling, the Court decided that a police officer may stop and frisk a citizen on the street if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the citizen is armed or involved in a crime. This suspicion must be based on the belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous.
The case involved a Cleveland detective, McFadden, who forcibly frisked Terry and felt a gun through his clothing. The only evidence of a crime being committed was this suspicion, as no weapons were found. The Court ruled that the weapons were admissible in court, and Terry was convicted.
The Court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a frisk of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of a crime. Chief Justice Earl Warren acknowledged that stop and frisk is "a serious intrusion upon the sanctity of the person, which may inflict great indignity and arouse strong resentment". However, he also recognised the need for "an escalating set of flexible responses" for police in dangerous situations.
The Court's ruling set a precedent for stop and frisk law, which must be based on reasonable suspicion, good cause to believe, and articulable suspicion. This decision has had a significant impact on police-community relations, particularly regarding minorities and the poor. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk practices were unconstitutional, citing violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Alien and Sedition Acts: Unconstitutional Violation?
You may want to see also
The Court ruled that officers can stop and pat down a suspect if they have reasonable suspicion
In the 1968 case of Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that police officers can stop and pat down a suspect if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed and, therefore, a threat to the officer's safety. The Court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of a crime. The Court held that the frisk was essential to the officer's investigatory duties and that a loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is admissible as evidence.
The Court's ruling set a precedent for "stop and frisk" laws, which allow police officers to temporarily detain, question, and search individuals based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. While the ruling provided law enforcement with a valuable tool for preventing potential crimes, it has also been controversial due to concerns about potential abuse and violations of civil liberties.
The "reasonable suspicion" standard set by the Court means that officers do not need a warrant or probable cause to conduct a stop and frisk. This gives officers significant discretion in initiating these interactions, which can lead to concerns about potential misuse or discrimination. In 2013, for example, a federal judge ruled that the New York Police Department's (NYPD) stop-and-frisk practices were unconstitutional, citing evidence of systemic racial profiling and unlawful searches, particularly targeting Black and Latino communities.
To address these concerns, the Court in Terry v. Ohio established scope limitations for stop and frisk. It cannot be a full-scale seizure of a person; it must be within reach and last only a short time. Officers can only search for what is absolutely necessary, such as weapons, and the search must be limited to a pat-down of the suspect's exterior clothing. These limitations aim to balance the need for police to ensure their safety and conduct investigations with the constitutional rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Executive Orders: Senate's Approval Needed?
You may want to see also
The Court recognised that 'stop and frisk' is less intrusive than full-blown searches
In the landmark case of Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the constitutionality of stop and frisk, recognising that it is less intrusive than full-blown searches. The Court's decision, penned by Chief Justice Earl Warren, acknowledged the need for police to have flexible responses in dangerous situations while also protecting citizens' rights. The Court held that a stop and frisk is a form of seizure and search under the Fourth Amendment, but one that is less invasive than a full-scale seizure or search for evidence. This distinction is crucial, as it allows officers to ensure their safety while also respecting the rights of individuals.
The Court's recognition that stop and frisk is less intrusive than a full-blown search set a precedent for future cases involving the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio provided clarity on when and how stop and frisk can be used by law enforcement. The Court ruled that a stop and frisk must be based on reasonable suspicion, good cause, and articulable suspicion that an individual may be armed and dangerous. This standard is lower than the probable cause required for an arrest or full-blown search but still provides important safeguards for citizens.
In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the Court applied this standard to the stop and frisk conducted by Officer McFadden. The Court found that McFadden had reasonable suspicion that a crime was about to take place and that the defendants could be armed and dangerous. This reasonable suspicion was based on the defendants' suspicious behaviour, and it justified McFadden's decision to pat down their outer clothing. The Court recognised that a stop and frisk is a swift and necessary action in such situations, allowing officers to ensure their safety without infringing too heavily on citizens' rights.
The Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio has had a significant impact on police practices and has been referenced in numerous subsequent cases. For example, in Utah v. Strieff, the Supreme Court held that evidence obtained during a stop and frisk was admissible in court when there was a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant. Similarly, in Rodriguez v. United States, the Court ruled that a police stop that exceeded the time needed to handle the matter violated the Constitution's protection against unreasonable seizures. These cases demonstrate how the Supreme Court's recognition that stop and frisk is less intrusive than a full-blown search has shaped the legal landscape surrounding the Fourth Amendment.
However, it is important to note that the practice of stop and frisk has also faced significant criticism and legal challenges. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk practices were unconstitutional, citing systemic racial profiling and violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. This ruling highlights the ongoing debate and legal complexities surrounding stop and frisk, even as the Supreme Court has recognised its reduced intrusiveness compared to full-blown searches.
Foundations of the US Constitution: Principles and Values
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$15.48 $19.99
The weapons found during 'stop and frisk' were deemed admissible in court
In 1963, veteran police officer Martin McFadden noticed three men behaving suspiciously outside a jewelry store in Cleveland, Ohio. The men were pacing back and forth, repeatedly stopping to look inside the store. After observing this behavior, McFadden decided to approach the men, identify himself as a police officer, and ask for their names. After the men mumbled something in response, McFadden performed an exterior search (a pat down) of the men to ensure his safety. During the pat down, he felt a weapon through the clothing of John Terry, which he then removed. He performed a pat down of the other two men and found that Richard Chilton was also carrying a weapon. Both men were charged with the illegal possession of a concealed firearm.
During the subsequent trial, attorneys for Terry and Chilton argued that the weapons were obtained by Officer McFadden illegally via an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, but the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence. The court held that McFadden had cause to believe that the two men were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that he had the right to pat them down for his own protection.
The defense team appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, but to no avail. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the state in Terry v. Ohio in 1968. The Supreme Court held that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, meaning that it cannot be unreasonable. The Court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of a crime. The frisk was deemed reasonable, as it was "minimally necessary" for discovering weapons and stopped short of a general search.
The weapons found during the stop and frisk were deemed admissible in court, and Terry and Chilton were found guilty. This set a precedent for future stop-and-frisk cases, with the Supreme Court ruling that when a police officer has a "valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant" for an individual, any evidence obtained from a stop of that individual will be admissible in court, even if the stop would otherwise violate the Fourth Amendment. However, it is important to note that in 2013, a federal judge ruled that the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk practices were unconstitutional, subjecting millions of innocent people to unlawful searches through systemic racial profiling.
The Preamble's Purpose: Framing America's Constitutional Vision
You may want to see also
The Court ruled that 'stop and frisk' does not require a warrant
In 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of the state in Terry v. Ohio, a case that examined the constitutionality of stop and frisk. The Court decided that "stops" and "frisks" are considered "seizures" and "searches" under the Fourth Amendment. However, it also ruled that a stop and frisk do not require a warrant.
The Court's decision in Terry v. Ohio set a precedent for when police officers can conduct a stop and frisk. According to the ruling, a police officer must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect. Additionally, the officer must have a reasonable belief that the suspect is armed and dangerous to conduct a frisk, which involves patting down the suspect's outer clothing.
The Court recognised that stop and frisk is a serious intrusion upon an individual's personal security and should not be undertaken lightly. However, it also acknowledged the need for police officers to have flexible responses in dangerous situations. As a result, the Court ruled that the standard for stop and frisk is "reasonable suspicion," which is a lower standard than the previously endorsed "probable cause."
The ruling in Terry v. Ohio has had a significant impact on police practices and has been the subject of ongoing debate. While it provides officers with greater discretion in conducting searches, it also raises concerns about potential abuses of power and the protection of citizens' rights. The case highlighted the delicate balance between public safety and individual liberties, and it continues to shape the way law enforcement agencies carry out their duties and interact with the communities they serve.
Confidentiality Breaches: These Actions Violate Privacy Laws
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The 1968 Terry v. Ohio ruling declared stop and frisk constitutional.
The ruling was based on the Fourth Amendment's right against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Court held that a frisk was essential to the proper performance of an officer's investigatory duties.
The Court ruled that officers have the right to stop and pat down a suspect if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed. The Court also set scope limitations for the stop, stating that it cannot be a full-scale seizure, must be within reach, and must last only a short while.
Yes, there have been several challenges to the ruling over the years. In 2013, a federal judge ruled that the New York City Police Department's stop-and-frisk practices were unconstitutional, citing violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and systemic racial profiling.
