Stop and Frisk
A Terry stop is the narrow exception that lets an officer briefly detain someone without a warrant and without probable cause.
13. Stop and Frisk
Although any detention constitutes a “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, police are allowed to detain a person without a warrant if the requirements are met for a “Terry stop.” Under some circumstances, they may also pat the subject down or “frisk” them incident to that stop. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
- There are three elements of a valid Terry stop:
- The detention is brief,
- The officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and
- The suspicion is based on articulable facts.
- The standard of “reasonable suspicion” is lower than that of “probable cause.”
- The police may not detain the person longer than needed to effectuate the purpose of the original stop.
- To conduct a frisk incident to the stop, the officer must have a [reasonable suspicion] that the stopped person is armed and dangerous.
- A reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity is necessary but not sufficient to justify a frisk.
- For a frisk, police must have the reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity [plus a separate reasonable suspicion that a weapon is present and that the individual is dangerous].
A Terry stop is a brief warrantless detention on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The frisk is a separate question: a valid stop does not automatically authorize a pat-down.
The stop lets an officer briefly detain someone without a warrant and without probable cause. The word to hold onto is articulable: the officer has to point to specific facts that, taken together, make criminal activity reasonably likely. Reasonable suspicion is a real standard, but it is a lower standard than probable cause; it takes less to justify a brief stop than to make an arrest or a full search.
- 1The detention has to be brief.
- 2The officer has to have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
- 3That suspicion has to rest on articulable facts, not a hunch.
There is also a duration limit baked into the stop: the officer may not hold the person any longer than is needed to carry out the purpose of the original stop. Drag the detention out beyond that purpose and the stop stops being a valid Terry stop.
The frisk is where most people go wrong. To pat the person down, the officer needs a reasonable suspicion that the stopped person is armed and dangerous. A reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is necessary for a frisk, but it is not sufficient: the officer needs that suspicion of criminal activity plus a separate reasonable suspicion that a weapon is present and that the person is dangerous. Two suspicions, not one. So a stop can be perfectly lawful and the frisk that follows can still be unlawful, because the second, armed-and-dangerous suspicion was missing.
Two-suspicion rule for the frisk: a valid stop gets you a stop, not a frisk.
To frisk, the officer needs suspicion #1 (criminal activity) plus suspicion #2 (this person is armed and dangerous).
Suspicion of crime is necessary but not sufficient.
If a question hands you a clean, lawful stop and then a pat-down with no facts pointing to a weapon or danger, the frisk fails.
For the stop itself, run the three closed elements: brief, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, built on articulable facts (not a hunch).
And remember the two relative-standard facts that are easy to misstate: reasonable suspicion is lower than probable cause, and the detention can last no longer than the original stop's purpose requires.
An officer watching a parking lot late at night sees a man repeatedly peer into the windows of several parked cars, try a door handle, then walk to the next car and do the same. The officer stops the man and asks what he is doing.
That brief detention is a valid Terry stop: it is brief, the officer has a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and the suspicion rests on articulable facts (the repeated peering and the tried handle), not a hunch. The officer does not need probable cause, because reasonable suspicion is the lower standard that governs the stop.
Suppose the officer immediately pats the man down and feels nothing but a wallet. Was the frisk justified? Only if the officer also had a reasonable suspicion that the man was armed and dangerous. The suspicion of criminal activity that justified the stop is necessary but not sufficient for the frisk; the officer needs that suspicion plus a separate reasonable suspicion that a weapon is present and the man is dangerous. If nothing in the facts points to a weapon or to danger, the stop stands but the frisk does not.
Add that the man kept one hand jammed in a bulging jacket pocket and turned that side away from the officer, and now there are articulable facts supporting the separate armed-and-dangerous suspicion, so the frisk becomes justified too.
A "Yes, the frisk was justified" answer that leans only on the stop being lawful, or only on the officer's suspicion that a crime was afoot.
A lawful stop and a suspicion of criminal activity are both true but neither authorizes a frisk by itself; the frisk needs a separate reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous (necessary but not sufficient).An option that demands probable cause for the stop or the frisk, calls a hunch enough, or equates reasonable suspicion with probable cause.
A stop and a frisk both run on reasonable suspicion, which is LOWER than probable cause, and the stop's suspicion must rest on articulable facts, not a hunch.An absolute option: a valid stop ALWAYS permits a frisk, or an officer may NEVER frisk during a stop, or suspicion of an offense can NEVER support a pat-down.
The frisk turns on the separate armed-and-dangerous suspicion; it is allowed when that suspicion exists and not allowed when it does not, so blanket always/never statements are wrong.An option that treats the stop as valid regardless of length, or that lets the detention continue for unrelated investigation after the original purpose is met.
The officer may not detain the person longer than needed to effectuate the purpose of the original stop; once that purpose is met, continued detention exceeds a valid stop.a stem in which an officer detains someone briefly, then often pats them down.
Split it into two questions every time.
the stop: was it brief, backed by a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and built on specific articulable facts rather than a hunch?
Watch for the stem that quietly stretches the detention past the original purpose, or that substitutes probable-cause language for the lower reasonable-suspicion standard.
and separately, the frisk: even with a lawful stop, the pat-down is justified only if the officer also had a reasonable suspicion that the person was armed and dangerous.
The instant the facts give you a clean stop but say nothing about a weapon or danger, the frisk is the wrong call, and any answer that treats the lawful stop as enough to frisk is a distractor.
Two suspicions, run them separately.
Late one evening an officer on patrol noticed a man standing at the edge of a closed business, glancing repeatedly over his shoulder, walking a few steps toward the locked rear door, then retreating, and repeating the pattern several times. Based on these observations, the officer briefly stopped the man to ask what he was doing. The man argued that the officer had no right to detain him because the officer had not yet gathered enough to arrest him.
Was the brief stop of the man justified?
An officer lawfully stopped a driver after observing specific conduct that gave the officer a reasonable suspicion the driver was involved in a theft. During the brief stop the officer immediately patted down the driver's outer clothing. Nothing about the driver's behavior, words, or appearance suggested he was armed or dangerous, and the officer later admitted he frisked simply because he had decided to stop the driver. The driver challenged the pat-down.
Was the frisk of the driver justified?
An officer briefly stopped a man based on a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that the man had just shoplifted from a nearby store. As the officer approached, the man kept one hand pressed against a heavy bulge in his waistband, repeatedly shifted that side of his body away from the officer, and refused to take his hand off the bulge when asked. The officer then patted down the man's waistband and recovered a concealed weapon.
Was the frisk of the man justified?
An officer lawfully stopped a woman based on a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity supported by articulable facts. The officer quickly confirmed the limited matter that prompted the stop and had no remaining basis to suspect her of anything. Even so, the officer kept the woman detained at the roadside for a lengthy further period while waiting for an unrelated unit to arrive, with nothing about the original purpose still to be addressed. The woman challenged the continued detention.
Did the continued detention of the woman remain a valid stop?
An officer saw a man walking through a quiet neighborhood and, without observing any specific conduct, felt from years of experience that the man simply did not belong there. Acting on that feeling alone, and able to point to nothing the man had done, the officer stopped the man and detained him to ask questions. The man objected that the officer had no factual basis for the stop.
Was the stop of the man justified?