Which supreme Court case is the basis Stop and frisk?

Answer 1

Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 (1968)

Answer

The US Supreme Court held that "stop and frisk" was a legitimate investigatory technique when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety. The evidence obtained may not be suppressed under the exclusionary rule when the search and seizure is appropriate.

Explanation

A Cleveland police officer (McFadden) observed two unidentified men on a street corner in his beat. As the officer watched, the men took turns walking a short distance down the sidewalk and peering in a particular store window. After each circuit, the men would appear to confer about something. This occurred a total of twenty-four times.

McFadden watched as the men were briefly joined by a third person who left quickly. The suspicious activity caused McFadden to suspect the men were planning to rob the store.

After the third individual left, the men began walking away in the direction of the store. McFadden followed and observed from a distance until they met up with the third party. McFadden then approached the group, identified himself as police, and asked the men's names.

The men mumbled something unintelligible, at which point McFadden turned one of the suspects and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the process, the officer found a gun in the pocket of the suspect's jacket, but was unable to remove it. He then directed all three men to enter a store with their hands raised, and proceeded to pat down the other two suspects, recovering a revolver from one. The three were taken to the local police station, where two were charged with carrying a concealed weapon.

At trial, the defense attorney moved to suppress the weapons as evidence. The prosecution asserted McFadden's actions were reasonable based on his observations, and that he had the right to search the men for his protection.

The men were found guilty, and the court's decision was affirmed by the state appellate court. The Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal for lack of a substantial constitutional question.

Supreme Court Decision

The US Supreme Court granted certiorari on a Fourth Amendment challenge to the officer's actions as constituting an "unreasonable search and seizure." The issue before the Court involved whether the confiscated evidence was admissible in court, or whether it was protected by the exclusionary rule.

In an 8-1 decision, the Warren Court held that the exclusionary rule couldn't be invoked to exclude the product of "legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques."

The Court held that the stop, or seizure, and frisk, or search, was valid when a "reasonably prudent officer" has cause to believe a limited search is warranted for his and others' safety.

In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Warren stated:

"Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed.

"(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required."

The majority of the Court concluded the "stop and frisk" technique was constitutional as long as the action could be rationally justified by circumstances.

Answer 2

Terry v. Ohio