Distinguishing a “Terry Stop” from an Arrest
In the America we live in today, it is imperative that private citizens know their rights. The Fourth Amendment protects us “against unreasonable searches and seizures” and “no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” In order for the Fourth Amendment to be triggered, an encounter between a police officer and a private citizen must be intrusive enough to constitute a seizure and a de facto arrest.
Reasonable Suspicion v. Probable Cause
In the United States, a Terry Stop allows law enforcement to briefly detain a person based on the reasonable suspicion that the person is or was engaged in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause, which is the standard needed for an arrest. Over the years, Terry Stops have become controversial amidst data showing that minorities have been disproportionally stopped and frisked by law enforcement—leading to charges of racial profiling.
[W]e cannot help but be aware that the burden of aggressive and intrusive police action falls disproportionately on African-American, and sometimes Latino, males…[A]s a practical matter society nor our enforcement of the laws is yet color-blind. Cases, newspaper reports, books, and scholarly writings all make clear that the experience of being stopped by the police is a much more common one for black men than it is for white men, Washington v. Lambert, 98 F.3d 1181, 1187 (9th Cir. 1996).
The Facts of Terry v. Ohio
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), three men, including the defendant Terry, were approached by an officer who suspected that the men were planning to rob a store. The officer had observed two of the men outside of the store walking up to the window and then away several times. The third man met up with the two other men and all three men engaged in a conversation. The officer approached the men, identified himself and asked what they were doing. After the men mumbled a response to the officer, he grabbed Terry and patted him down to determine whether or not he was armed. The search resulted in the discovery of a gun in Terry’s coat pocket. A second search on one of the other men also revealed a gun. At trial, the officer testified that he thought the men may have been armed. Terry was convicted of possession of a concealed weapon and appealed his conviction, claiming that the search was a violation of his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Issue & Holding in Terry v. Ohio
The ultimate issue in Terry v. Ohio was whether or not a police officer can detain an individual on the street absent probable cause and conduct a search to unearth any possible weapons on the individual’s person. In short, the Court concluded yes. The Court held that police may stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Police may also frisk the person for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous—all without violating the Fourth Amendment. However, the reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon the officer’s hunch.
Therefore, police officers must be able to point out actual facts which support their suspicion that a person was engaging in or planned to engage in criminal activity. If the stop reveals additional evidence, then the officer will have the necessary probable cause to move forward with conducting a more extensive search and/or making an arrest.
What is Permissible Police Conduct During a Terry Stop?
During a Terry Stop, an officer usually conducts a quick pat down of the person’s clothing. The pat down must be brief and non-intrusive. In Terry, the officer’s quick pat down revealed that Terry was carrying a gun. However, in the U.S. Supreme Court case Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993), the Court held that the officer’s conduct did violate the defendant’s constitutional rights. In this case, a minuscule amount of crack cocaine was found in Dickerson’s jacket pocket. A quick pat down of his person would not have revealed that he was carrying narcotics in his jacket. The officer found the drugs by squeezing his fingers over the jacket, which was conduct that exceeded the scope of what is permissible under the law.
Contact Bixon Law Today
If you have additional questions about the difference between a Terry Stop and an arrest or you believe that you have been charged and/or convicted of a crime that was a result of an unlawful stop and frisk, please don’t hesitate to contact us today to discuss your case with one of our experienced criminal defense attorneys. We represent clients in Atlanta and throughout the state of Georgia. We are committed to helping our clients through difficult situations and working to get them the best possible outcome. We invite you to call us at 404-551-5684 for a free consultation.