Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

Terry v. Ohio

Supreme Court of the United States · 1968 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth Amendmentstop and friskreasonable suspicionbrief investigatory stopFourth Amendmentsearchseizure

Facts

Officer McFadden, an experienced Cleveland detective, observed Terry and Chilton repeatedly pace past the same store window, peer inside, return to confer, and repeat the pattern about a dozen times, with a third man briefly joining them before they all moved off together. Based on these observations, McFadden suspected they were casing a store for a robbery and feared they might have a gun. He approached, identified himself, asked for their names, received only mumbled responses, then grabbed Terry, patted down the outside of his clothing, felt a pistol in Terry's overcoat pocket, and then removed it. McFadden also frisked the other men, finding another revolver on Chilton but none on Katz.

Issue

Whether it is always unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to seize a person and conduct a limited search for weapons unless the officer has probable cause to arrest. More specifically, whether Officer McFadden's seizure of Terry and pat-down for weapons were reasonable under the circumstances.

Rule

The Fourth Amendment applies to brief on-the-street seizures and protective pat-downs. A police officer may, in appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, briefly detain a person for investigation and conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing for weapons when the officer can point to specific and articulable facts, taken together with rational inferences from those facts and judged objectively in light of the officer's experience, that reasonably warrant the intrusion because criminal activity may be afoot and the person may be armed and presently dangerous. The search must be justified at its inception and reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Officer Nina Alvarez approached Devin Cole outside a bus terminal after watching him for several minutes. When Devin turned to leave, Alvarez grabbed his elbow, turned him toward a wall, and ran her hands over the outside of his jacket looking for weapons.

Which statement is most accurate under the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that when an officer accosts a person and restrains the person's freedom to walk away, a seizure has occurred, and that a careful exploration of the outer surfaces of clothing for weapons is a search. The Fourth Amendment therefore applies even when the encounter is brief and does not culminate in a formal arrest.