0
No. The terms are synonymous. The "stop and frisk" technique was challenged as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure when Terry attempted to have the gun recovered during a pat down excluded from evidence in court.
The term "Terry Stop" derives from the US Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, (1968) that upheld the investigative technique as constitutional under circumstances where a "reasonably prudent officer" has a legitimate concern for his or others' safety. The Court refused to apply the exclusionary rule to stop and frisk, allowing anything recovered during a "legitimate and restrained" pat down to be used against the defendant in court.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
The difference between a voluntary encounter and a Terry stop?
During voluntary encounter a person is free to walk away, while in Terry stop an individual is temporarily seized.
Does stop and search invade peoples privacy?
The correct terminology is Stop and Frisk - and the Supreme Court has ruled that if the officer's 'reasonable suspicion' for the stop can be articulated, it is, in fact, legal and proper. See: Terry v. Ohio
Is a terry search considered a intrusive search?
The pat-down for weapons in a Terry stop is, by definition, not a search. It is a "frisk" or pat-down solely for the purpose of discovering any weapons that could be used against the officer making the stop. It is, therefore, not an "intrusive search."
What are Donald Trump's views on stop and frisk?
Donald Trump believes "Stop and Frisk" was a good idea. However, "Stop and Frisk" was ruled unconstitutional and New York City discontinued the practice. "Stop and Frisk" was wrong because it relied on biases about who to stop, examples: young men, young black men.Even if Trump wants to re-establish this, he cannot because of the court ruling.
What is Hillary Clinton's stand on stop and frisk?
It is unconstitutional and against the law because it profiles people.
What is stop and frisk?
A stop and frisk is when a police officer stops you in the street and frisks you; much like they do in the Airport. It consists of physically checking your body for weapons or anything else that is illegal.
What are the release dates for Avengers Assemble - 2010 Stop and Frisk 3-2?
Avengers Assemble - 2010 Stop and Frisk 3-2 was released on: USA: 17 February 2014
What are the release dates for Independent Sources - 2008 Stop and Frisk 4-24?
Independent Sources - 2008 Stop and Frisk 4-24 was released on: USA: 20 June 2012
What are the release dates for The Awful Truth - 1999 Stop and Frisk Night 2-8?
The Awful Truth - 1999 Stop and Frisk Night 2-8 was released on: USA: 12 July 2000
What the difference between search and seizure and Stop and Frisk Rule?
search and seizure requires probable cause. which means the cop will have had to know that you committed a crime and a stop and frisk only requires reasonable suspicion but the cop can not actually search you they can only pat down the outside of your clothing to make sure you don't have any weapons. In that case they should only be ""Frisking"" you for their own safety to make sure you do not have a weapon that can be used against them. If do they happen to feel a pound of weed on you during a stop and frisk then they have Probable cause to search and seize you and the evidence. :)
What is the cons of frisk and stop?
A stop and frisk, or a Terry stop, allows law enforcement or an agent acting under law enforcement authority, to pat down an individual's outer clothing.The law permitting this search is intended to (1) dispel the reasonable suspicion that the person is armed during a legal detainment (cop has a right to stop and detain the individual and the individual has an obligation to remain) or (2) to dispel any reasonably suspicion that the individual is carrying evidence of a crime or otherwise unlawful substances.The cons of a stop and frisk are in the testimony of law enforcement in stating their belief that there was in fact "a reasonable suspicion"; in particular, while a cop in most states will be able to justify a suspicion of an individual on the street being armed, it is often tricky for the cop to show reasonable suspicion the individual is carrying something illegal.It seems worthwhile to note here that the stop and frisk must be done during the lawful detainment of an individual, or else the cop must prove the individual consented to the search. If incriminating evidence is found, a defense can easily be raised that the defendant would not have consented. However, a political, if not legal issue, arises at this point as the defense lawyer would essentially be calling the cop a liar.The cons of a stop and frisk is that, in court, it is often the credibility of the defendant against the credibility of the cop that determines what happened during the Terry stop and why.Another View:The above answer contains incorrect information. ANY stop made by an officer is going to be based upon "reasonable suspicion." "Reasonable suspicion" of WHAT? The 'reasonable suspicion of the officer that the individual may have committed a crime! The courts have ruled that - FOR THE OFFICERS SAFETY - they may do a Terry Frisk on subjects they have stopped on the street for interrogation. The officer does NOT need to be able to articulate that they believed the subject was armed, their own self-protection during the stop of a suspected criminal is justification enough!
What constitutional issue was interpreted in Terry v. Ohio?
Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)The Fourth Amendment, specifically the Search and Seizure Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. Terry's attorney attempted to have the "stop and frisk" technique labeled an unreasonable search and seizure in order to have any evidence discovered during the search suppressed under the Exclusionary Rule.The case also raised the question of whether the petitioner's Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizure was made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.The US Supreme Court found the "stop and frisk" technique constitutional when a "reasonably prudent officer" has concerns for his or others' safety. As a result, evidence produced from the search may be used against the defendant in court.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
