Terry Stop

This week's forum is on the "Terry Stop." First, explain the facts and the decision in the Terry case. Then, type 'stop and frisk" into an Internet search engine and read a few articles and reports about stop and frisk practices in various cities and states in the U.S. There are quite a few websites you can visit. Please summarize at least one article, report or case that you found and cite your reference.

The articles and reports available show the depth and the nature of the controversy about stop and frisk. It's not just a question of constitutional law, but an important public policy issue that impacts police/community relations.

The case of Terry v Ohio was brought to the Supreme Court in 1967 and brought forth the term "stops and frisks". The case brought to issue Police Officers invading the personal space of citizens without having probable cause. It was quite common, during that time, for police to stop suspicious people on the street, based solely on hunches, to deter street crime.

In October of 1963, a police officer observed two suspicious men, one of them Terry, standing on a street corner. In his opinion, they were not in the right place at the right time. And based on his suspicion, the officer took up surveillance. He observed the men "casing" storefronts. The two then spoke for a brief period of time and continued to walk back and forth from store to store. While the two men were speaking with one another, a third man approached and engaged them in conversation. The third man then walked away, after another 10 minutes, the first two men left the corner and followed the third man. .

The Police Officer, who had 35 years experience, was suspicious and believed that the men were "casing a job" for burglary. Based on his training and experience he feared the men were armed. The officer followed the two until they met back up with the third man and approached all three, identifying himself as a Police Officer. He asked the three men their names which they mumbled incoherently. The officer then grabbed the man in the middle, (Terry) and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket, he felt a hand gun, which he was unable to remove. The Officer removed Terry's jacket, and removed a handgun. The officer then patted down the third man, and found another handgun. The officer never felt beneath the outer clothing of the men until locating the weapons on the outside clothing. Once weapons were found on the two suspects, probable cause was established to fully search those individuals for any other contraband. The three men were taken into custody and Terry, along with the other man who had a weapon, were charged with carrying concealed weapons.

Terry was convicted and sentenced to one to three years. The gun and ammunition were used as evidence in the trial. The defense filed a pre-trial motion to have the evidence suppressed as "fruits of a poisonous tree" (illegal search) which would make the gun and ammunition inadmissible only to have the motion denied. Based of the officer's training and experience, the court concluded he had cause to conduct an interrogation and did not violate Terry's fourth amendment rights. Terry's attorneys appealed to the Supreme Court.

The question to the Supreme Court was whether Terry's right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. The court decided that anytime a person is deprived of his ability to leave...He is seized. They further determined that the patting of the outer clothing constitutes a search. The issue that needed to be determined was weather the Officers actions were reasonable. The court felt, when practical, Police need a probable cause and warrant to search. However, while walking a beat, during on the spot observation, obtaining a search warrant is not practical. Secondly the court felt that based on the Officer's observation of the men and his training and experience, it was reasonable to believe the men could be armed. Lastly, the Officer restricted his search to outer clothing only and terminated the search on the one man which no weapon was found. Based on these facts, the court affirmed the Terry decision and the conviction was upheld. (1)

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit arguing that police illegally stopped pedestrians based on race and questioned them with little or no justification.

The lawsuit accuses the Philadelphia Police Department of crossing a line with its aggressive "stop-and-frisk" policy. In 2008 the Mayor declared a "crime emergency" and in 2009, police stopped 253,333 pedestrians, 72 percent of whom were African American. The suit alleges only 8 percent of the stops led to an arrest, often for "criminal conduct that was entirely independent from the reason for the stop,"

The suit was filed by a local law firm and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.

Among the eight named plaintiffs is a Georgetown Law graduate who has been stopped four times since 2008 in West Philadelphia "without probable cause or reasonable suspicion,"

The Mayor and his police commissioner made the stop-and-frisk