Terry v. Ohio

The Court held that police may stop and frisk a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and danger.

Overview

Cleveland detective Martin McFadden observed men repeatedly pacing before a store, suspected an armed robbery, and frisked them, finding guns. Chief Justice Warren, for an 8-1 majority, held that the Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops when an officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal conduct, and a protective frisk for weapons when the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous. Terry balanced individual security against effective policing, creating a vast middle tier between consensual conversation and arrest. Stop and frisk practice expanded enormously, making Terry among the most consequential criminal procedure decisions.