Terry v. Ohio

Terry v. Ohio expanded the right of police officers to "stop and frisk" individuals whom they deem to be suspicious. At the same time, it set limits on the conditions under which such a stop could take place.

Martin McFadden, a veteran Cleveland detective, was walking his beat one afternoon when he observed two strangers on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route and pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did over a dozen times. At some point, they were joined by a third man. Suspecting the trio of "casing" the store for a potential burglary, McFadden followed them. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," at which point McFadden grabbed one of the men, Terry, spun him around, and patted down his outside clothing--a common police tactic known as "stop and frisk." He found a pistol in Terry's overcoat pocket but was unable to remove it. McFadden then ordered the three men into the store and removed Terry's overcoat. He removed the gun and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He then patted down the outer clothing of the other two men and seized another revolver. McFadden asked the store's proprietor to call the police, at which point they were placed under arrest for carrying concealed weapons.

Terry and his companions were convicted of carrying concealed weapons and sentenced to one to three years in prison. They appealed the conviction on the grounds that McFadden's actions were an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. If that were true, the evidence that was seized--the pistols--should not have been admitted in court. At Terry's trial, the court denied his motion to suppress this evidence on the grounds that McFadden had cause to believe the men were acting suspiciously, and that he had the right to pat down their outer clothing if he had reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court made a distinction between a "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. An appellate court affirmed the guilty verdict, and the state supreme court dismissed Terry's appeal. The case then came before the U.S. Supreme Court