Stop and frisk rule and the Supreme Court

DESCRIPTION: The authority of the police, under certain circumstances, to approach and conduct an investigatory detention of a citizen and a limited search for weapons.

SIGNIFICANCE: In a 1968 case, the Supreme Court allowed police to use stop-and-frisk searches to investigate suspicious activity and to protect their safety and that of the public.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by the police without a warrant. The Uniform Arrest Act of 1942 and some state statutes, including a law in New York, allowed police officers to briefly detain a person for questioning if they suspected illegal activity and frisk them (pat down the outside of their clothing) in search of a weapon.

In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court held that police officers can stop a person briefly for the purpose of investigation if they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring. The Court did not give a precise definition of “reasonable suspicion,” but required specific and articulable facts and placed it somewhere between a vague suspicion and probable cause. The duration of the stop is limited to the amount of time necessary to either confirm or eliminate the officer’s suspicions about the suspect. The Court also stated that an officer may conduct a limited search or “pat down” of the suspect to ensure their safety and that of the public if they have reason to believe the suspect is armed and dangerous.

The Supreme Court has heard additional cases that clarified and expanded stop-and-frisk laws since Terry v. Ohio; however, stop-and-frisk policies of many urban police forces in the United States came under fire in the twenty-first century as promoting racial profiling. The most famous of these was in 2013, when a federal judge ruled that the stop-and-frisk policies of the New York City Police Department violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Despite this and similar rulings in other jurisdictions as well as research linking such protocols to racial profiling concerns under the Fourth Amendment, many urban police forces apply stop-and-frisk practices.

Bibliography

“Bias at the Core? Enduring Racial Disparities in D.C. Metropolitan Police Department Stop-and-Frisk Practices (2022-2023).” ACLU District of Columbia, www.acludc.org/app/uploads/2025/07/aclu-dc_2024_stop-and-frisk_report.pdf. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

McCann, Sam. “What Is Stop-and-Frisk? And is it Constitutional?” Vera Institute of Justice, 21 Feb. 2025, www.vera.org/news/what-is-stop-and-frisk. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

“Stop-and-Frisk Data.” NYCLU, 27 May 2025, www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-frisk-data. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

“Terry v. Ohio.” Oyez, 10 June 1968, www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

“Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968).” ACLU of Ohio, 10 June 1968, www.acluohio.org/en/cases/terry-v-ohio-392-us-1-1968. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.

Thompson, Taahira. “NYPD's Infamous Stop-and-Frisk Policy Found Unconstitutional.” The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, 21 Aug. 2013, civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-and-frisk-policy-found-unconstitutional/. Accessed 10 Apr. 2026.