A "Terry Stop" is a stop of a person by law enforcement officers based upon "reasonable suspicion" that a person may have been engaged in criminal activity, whereas an arrest requires "probable cause" that a suspect committed a criminal offense. The name comes from the standards established in a 1968 case, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.1. The issue in the case was whether police should be able to detain a person and subject him to a limited search for weapons without probable cause for arrest. The court held that police may conduct a limited search of a person for weapons that could endanger the officer or those nearby, even in the absence of probable cause for arrest and any weapons seized may be introduced in evidence. When a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him or her to reasonably suspect criminal activity may be occurring and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, the officer might approach and briefly detain the subjects for the purpose of conducting a limited investigation. The officer must identify himself or herself as a police officer and may make reasonable inquiries. If after initial investigation the officer still has a reasonable fear for the safety of himself and others, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing in an attempt to discover weapons that might be used to assault him or her. In October of 1963, a police detective, McFadden, observed two suspicious men, Terry and Chilton, standing on a street corner. He had never seen the men in the area before, and his police instincts drew them to his eye. In his opinion, they were not in the right place at the right time. Due to this suspicion, the officer took up surveillance from approximately 400 feet away. He observed one of the men leave the corner, and walk past several stores. The man looked into the store windows, and continued walking. After a minute, he turned back around, and looked in the same windows...
Bibliography: Blotner, R. (1994). Proceedings / international perspectives on crime, drugs, and public order. New York, NY: John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
Dudley, S. . (1998). Terry v. ohio, the warren court, and the fourth amendment: a law clerk 's perspective. St. John 's L. Rev, 72, 891-904.
Harris, D. (1998). Particularized suspicion, categorical judgements: supreme court rhetoric versus lower court reality under terry v. ohio. St. John 's L. Rev, 72, 975-1024
Irons, P. (1993). May it please the court : the most significant oral arguments made before the supreme court since 1955 . New York, N.Y.: The New Press.
Katz, L. (2006). Terry v. ohio at thirty-five: a revisionist view. Miss. L.J., 74 , 423-500.
Mauro, T. (2006). Illustrated great decisions of the supreme court . Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
Nesbitt, M. (2006). Individual rights and the police . Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
Saltzburg, S. . (1998). Terry v. ohio: a practically perfect doctrine. St. John 's L. Rev, 72, 911-974.
Stephens, O. (2006). Unreasonable searches and seizures : rights and liberties under the law . Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document