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.
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
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."
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.
It is unconstitutional and against the law because it profiles people.
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.
Independent Sources - 2008 Stop and Frisk 4-24 was released on: USA: 20 June 2012
Avengers Assemble - 2010 Stop and Frisk 3-2 was released on: USA: 17 February 2014
In a voluntary encounter, a person is free to leave and not required to answer questions. In a Terry stop, a police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and can briefly detain and pat down the individual for weapons.
Yes, stop and frisk requires reasonable suspicion that a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. This must be based on specific and articulable facts.
The stop and frisk policy in New York City officially ended in August 2013. This decision came after a federal judge ruled that the policy violated individuals' constitutional rights.
The Awful Truth - 1999 Stop and Frisk Night 2-8 was released on: USA: 12 July 2000
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. :)