Terry—Stop and Frisk Flashcards
Terry v. Ohio
In an 8-1 decision, the Court upheld Terry’s conviction. Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the majority opinion, establishing the “Terry stop” or “stop and frisk” doctrine. The Court held that a police officer could stop and briefly detain a person if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, based on specific, articulable facts. Furthermore, if the officer has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous, the officer can conduct a limited pat-down search of the individual’s outer clothing for weapons.
Terry v. Ohio - Reasonableness analysis
Government interests weight in contrast to the individual interests in personal liberty and privacy
Seizure (stop) standard: Officers must have reasonable suspicion that the individual is acting in criminally suspicious behavior, resulting in the stop (seizure)
Search (frisk) standard:Officers must have reasonable suspicion, that the individuals they are dealing with may be armed and dangerous, in order to conduct a search of that person
Adams v. Williams—Early Application - I think that guy has a gun in his pants
In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld Williams’ conviction. Justice Byron White delivered the majority opinion, which held that the officer’s actions were justified under the principles established in Terry v. Ohio. The Court reasoned that the informant’s tip provided the officer with reasonable suspicion to believe that Williams was engaged in criminal activity and was armed and dangerous. Consequently, the officer’s actions in reaching into the car and seizing the firearm were constitutionally permissible as a protective measure for his own safety.
Pennsylvania v. Mimms—Bright Line Rules
The Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld Mimms’ conviction. Justice Byron White delivered the majority opinion, finding that the order to exit the vehicle was a minimal intrusion on Mimms’ Fourth Amendment rights and was justified by the need to protect officer safety during traffic stops. The Court reasoned that since the officers had the authority to stop Mimms for the traffic violation, asking him to exit the vehicle was a reasonable measure to ensure their safety.
Arizona v. Johnson—Traffic Stops
In a unanimous decision, the Court upheld the Arizona Court of Appeals’ ruling. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court, finding that the police officer’s frisk of Johnson was lawful under the principles established in Terry v. Ohio. The Court reasoned that once a lawful traffic stop is made, the officer’s interactions with both the driver and any passengers are covered by the same rules. Therefore, if an officer has reasonable suspicion that a passenger is armed and dangerous, the officer can conduct a protective frisk of the passenger.
