Terry stop

A Terry stop is a police procedure that allows law enforcement officers to briefly detain an individual on the basis of reasonable suspicion that they may be engaging in, or will engage in, criminal activity. There are two main types of Terry stops, including a “stop and frisk” and a pretextual stop. While the former is a Terry stop that is performed on a pedestrian, the latter occurs when an officer stops a motor vehicle on a minor infringement in order to facilitate an investigation into suspected criminal behavior. The concept of a Terry stop arose from the US Supreme Court’s landmark 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio, a case involving a Cleveland police officer who detained and frisked three men he suspected of planning a robbery. Since that time, the Terry stop has been a regular part of the American law enforcement repertoire, even as critics allege that its use often leads to racial discrimination and profiling.

Background

The legal basis of the Terry stop procedure was established by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Terry v. Ohio, a landmark case over a police interaction that occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, on October 31, 1963. On that day, Cleveland Police Department detective Martin McFadden observed two men, later identified as John W. Terry and Richard Chilton, standing on a street corner and acting suspiciously. McFadden watched as the two men alternately walked up and down the street, peered into the same store window, and then met to share words at the corner. Terry and Chilton repeated this act several times before being joined by a third man named Katz, who conferred with the two before quickly departing the scene. Suspecting the trio of planning a robbery, McFadden followed Terry and Chilton and witnessed them meet with Katz again a few blocks away. At this point, McFadden, who was in plainclothes, approached the men, identified himself as a police officer, and asked them to identify themselves. When the men offered little more than a mumble in response, McFadden turned Terry around, patted him down, and felt what appeared to be a gun in his coat pocket. After a failed attempt to retrieve the gun, McFadden ushered the men into a nearby store, removed Terry’s coat, and seized a revolver. The detective then ordered the three men to face the wall and raise their hands. Upon briefly patting down both Chilton and Katz, McFadden seized a revolver from the former’s coat pocket. He then took the men to the local police precinct and charged Terry and Chilton with carrying concealed weapons.

When the case against Terry and Chilton was tried in court, the defense motioned to supress the use of the weapons seized by McFadden as evidence on the grounds that the search and seizure he performed constituted a violation of the men’s Fourth Amendment rights. The court denied the motion and Terry and Chilton were ultimately found guilty. The case eventually reached the US Supreme Court, where, as expressed in Chief Justice Earl Warren’s majority opinion, the Court upheld Terry and Chilton’s convictions on the grounds that McFadden was within his authority to pat the men down for weapons because he observed the suspects acting in a suspicions manner that warranted further investigation. While the Court agreed that a pat-down search did constitute a search as outlined by the Fourth Amendment, it clarified that not all such searches were unconstitutional.

Overview

There are three types of police encounters, including mere encounters, investigative detentions, and custodial detentions. A mere encounter is a simple request for information. A police officer may commence a mere encounter with a subject without any suspicion of criminal activity and the subject is free from any legal obligation to cooperate. A custodial detention, on the other hand, is effectively an official arrest and requires probable cause. An investigative detention, commonly known as a Terry stop, is an intermediate measure between a mere encounter and a custodial detention.

More than just a request for information, but less than an arrest, a Terry stop is an encounter wherein a police officer stops a person when they have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a crime, is committing a crime, or will commit a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, which is required for an arrest. Still, the standard of reasonable suspicion rises above a simple “hunch” or “gut feeling.” Rather, police officers considering making a Terry stop must base their decision to act on specific, objective, and articulatable facts. This could include the fact that a person is in the vicinity of a place where the officer knowns a crime has been committed, or that the officer observes a person actively engaging in behavior indicative of criminal activity.

The Terry stop is often known by different names when performed under different circumstances. A Terry stop in which a police officer stops and searches a pedestrian is frequently referred to as a “stop and frisk.” When a police officer stops an automobile for some minor infringement because of suspected criminal activity, the Terry stop procedure is usually called a “pretextual stop.”

Critics of the Terry stop argue that the procedure tends to result in racial discrimination and profiling. Several states maintain data on the usage of Terry stops. This data collection allows agencies to better track if the Terry stop is being improperly used or heavily influenced by racial biases. For example, in New York City where the police department has faced several accusations of racial bias, data from stop-and-frisk encounters shows that the majority of those stopped are Black, with the second highest percentage being Latino. Although some states have laws that place limits on police officers’ ability to initiate a Terry stop when their suspicion is tied to the subject’s race, the risk still exists that the procedure could be employed in such a way as to invoke racial stereotypes or exacerbate existing racial tensions, especially if officers exhibit bias in performing their duties. Inappropriate use of the Terry stop on minority subjects may also help erode the public’s trust in the police. For these and other reasons, it is imperative that the Terry stop procedure is practiced responsibly, under the correct pretenses, and without bias.

Bibliography

“Amdt4.4.4.1.1 Terry Stop and Frisks: Doctrine and Practice.” Constitution Annotated, 2022, constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-4-4-1-1/ALDE‗00000797. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.

Carvalho, Aline Ara Santos et al. “Racial Prejudice and Police Stops: A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature.” Behavior Analysis in Practice vol. 15, no. 4, 1213-20, 28 May 2021, doi:10.1007/s40617-021-00578-4. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025. 

“Distinguishing a ‘Terry Stop’ from an Arrest.” Bixon Law, 2022, bixonlaw.com/distinguishing-a-terry-stop-from-an-arrest. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.

Layton Turner, Marcia. “When Can the Police Stop and Frist You on the Street?” LegalZoom, 2 May 2022, www.legalzoom.com/articles/when-can-the-police-stop-and-frisk-you-on-the-street. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.

“On This Day, a Win for ‘Stop and Frisk.’” National Constitution Center, 10 June 2021, constitutioncenter.org/blog/this-week-in-supreme-court-history-a-win-for-stop-and-frisk. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.

Samuel, Don. “Search and Seizure – Terry Stop – Prolonged Duration, or Improper Nature, of Seizure.” Casetext, 1 Sept. 2015, casetext.com/analysis/search-and-seizure-terry-stop-prolonged-duration-or-improper-nature-of-seizure. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.

"Stop-And-Frisk Data." NYCLU, 14 Mar. 2019, www.nyclu.org/data/stop-and-frisk-data. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025. 

“Stop-and-Frisk in California – When Are Cops Allowed to Do It?” Shouse California Law Group, 2022, www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/search-and-seizure/stop-and-frisk. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.

“Terry Stop – Landmark Stop and Frisk Case.” Cleveland 101, 2022, cleveland101.com/history/terry-stop-landmark-stop-and-frisk-case. Accessed 9 Feb. 2025.