Summary
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), upheld a limited stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion and safety concerns. The decision recognized that stops and frisks are Fourth Amendment events, but allowed a narrow weapons pat-down without probable cause when specific facts make the intrusion reasonable.
Legal Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment permit an officer, without probable cause to arrest, to briefly stop a person based on reasonable suspicion and conduct a limited frisk for weapons when the officer reasonably believes the person may be armed and dangerous?
Holding
Yes. The Court held that a brief investigatory stop is a seizure and a pat-down for weapons is a search, but both can be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when supported by specific, articulable facts. An officer may conduct a limited outer-clothing frisk for weapons when reasonably warranted for officer or public safety.
Rule of Law
Police may briefly stop someone on reasonable suspicion, and may do a limited weapons pat-down only when safety concerns are objectively reasonable. Terry is a permission slip for narrow field safety measures, not a general search power.
Court Reasoning
Not yet summarized.
Impact for Officers
Terry remains central to street encounters, traffic-stop extensions, suppression motions, officer-safety doctrine, and debates about over-policing. Courts still ask whether officers can point to specific facts supporting both the stop and any protective frisk.
What Officers Can Do
Not yet summarized.
What Officers Should Avoid
Not yet summarized.
Common Misunderstanding
Not yet summarized.