Terry Stop & Frisk and Reasonable Suspicion

Question 1

Requirement for a “Terry Stop”

Answer 1

Must have reasonable suspicion that “criminal activity is afoot”

Question 2

Requirement for a “Terry Frisk”

Answer 2

Must have reasonable suspicion that the stopped person is “armed and dangerous.” Can then seize any “plain touch” contraband.

Question 3

Burden of Proof for Terry Test - Reasonable suspicion

Answer 3

Fuzzy “totality of the circumstances test” and is lower than probable cause. Officer “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.”

Question 4

Terry (Rule)

Answer 4

If the police have a reasonable suspicion that a person is about to engage in criminal activity, he can briefly detain (stop) that person, and if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, they may frisk (pat down) that person. A stop is a seizure and a frisk is a search.

Question 5

Stop vs. Arrest - What factors to consider?

Answer 5

1. Was there movement (that was non-consensual)?
2. Duration
3. Police coercive behavior (handcuffs and drawing guns can be considered, but do not necessarily turn a stop into an arrest if it’s reasonably necessary for officer safety).

Question 6

How long can a Terry stop be?

Answer 6

As long as is practically necessary to satisfy the police’s inquiries.

Question 7

When can you frisk? - Factors to be considered

Answer 7

1. Bulge
2. Furtive Gesture
3. Reputation (carries gun as a gang member)
4. Engaging in a particular crime (eg. ARMED robbery)
5. Tip that a person has a gun

Question 8

Hiibel (Stop and Identify)

Answer 8

Failure to identify oneself in the course of a Terry Stop can be the basis for arrest and prosecution, because a request for a person to identify oneself usually “has an immediate relation to the purpose, rationale, and practical demands of a Terry stop.

Question 9

Arvizu (Reasonable Suspicion Definition)

-Case with the minivan drug smuggling operation

Answer 9

Whether something meets the standard of reasonable suspicion is, in general, a case by case endeavor, to be judged by the “totality of the circumstances” taken together (Not in isolation!!!).

Question 10

Alabama v. White (Need facts to support reasonable suspicion…only not quite as high as PC)

Anonymous tip predicting future events

Answer 10

Reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard than probable cause not only in the sense that reasonable suspicion can be established with information that is different in quantity or content than that required to establish probable cause, but also in the sense that reasonable suspicion can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause.

Question 11

J.L. (Anonymous tip describing a person a bus stop)

Contrast to White

Answer 11

Needs to be some moderate indicia of reliability present to establish reasonable suspicion.

Question 12

Navarette (Truck had just run a reporting party off the highway)

Answer 12

Reasonable suspicion depends on factual and practical considerations upon which reasonable men might act.

In Navarette, a call giving specific and timely details regarding a car’s reckless driving was sufficient for reasonable suspicion of ongoing drunk driving.

Question 13

Wardlow (Bunch of dudes in high crime area near reported crime, one took off running when the police came around).

Answer 13

1. An individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone is not enough to support a reasonable particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime, but officers are not required to ignore the relevant characteristics of location in determining whether the circumstances are suspicious enough to warrant further investigation.
2. Headlong flight - wherever it occurs - is the consummate act of evasion: it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, but it is certainly suggestive of such. Nervous & evasive behavior are also pertinent in determining reasonable suspicion.

Question 14

Sokolow (Using profiles as a part of RS analysis)

Answer 14

The fact that some information is part of a “profile” does not bar its use in finding “reasonable suspicion.” However, the mere matching of characteristics thought to be common to drug carriers is not enough. The suspicion must be individualized to the particular characteristics displayed by that particular person.