How would New York have ruled in Terry v Ohio?

Answer 1

If New York had ruled on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the standard of "probable cause" for stop-and-frisk would have favored law enforcement more, and defendants would have less protection under the Fourth Amendment. The less restrictive rules governing stop-and-frisk protocol would have enabled the state prosecution to enter confiscated property into evidence more easily, increasing the state's conviction rate.

We can answer this question with a high degree of certainty because the above summary describes how the state courts ruled in People v. Sibron, 18 N.Y.2d 603, 219 N.E.2d 196, 272 N.Y.S.2d 374 (1966), a case consolidated with Terry v. Ohiounder the name Sibron v. New York.

In Sibron, the defendants argued the New York Code of Criminal Procedure § 180-a, which allowed wide latitude for stopping suspects in public, was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, both facially and as applied.

Section 180-a read, in part: "police officer may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing . . ." certain crimes "and may demand . . . his name, address and an explanation of his actions..."

The US Supreme Court reversed the NY State Court of Appeals decision on the grounds that the police lacked probable cause to stop the defendants based on their behavior and their legitimate reason for being in the building where they were apprehended (one defendant had a girlfriend living there).

Ironically, the defendants had been planning a burglary and were carrying tools used to break into locked buildings; however, this evidence was only discovered due to (in the Supreme Court's opinion) unconstitutional search and seizure. The US Supreme Court held the exclusionary rule applied, preventing the prosecution from using the illegally obtained evidence to convict the defendants.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.