What case made reasonable suspicion?
Asked by: Dr. Donavon Kutch | Last update: February 8, 2026Score: 4.7/5 (43 votes)
The landmark Supreme Court case that established the standard of "reasonable suspicion" for brief investigative stops (known as "Terry stops") and frisks for weapons is Terry v. Ohio (1968). This ruling allowed police to detain and pat down a person if they have specific, articulable facts leading to a reasonable belief that the person is involved in criminal activity and is armed, even without probable cause.
What case established reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable Suspicion as Applied to Stop and Frisk
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court held that if a police officer reasonably believes that a person is armed and presently dangerous, the officer may stop and frisk the person for weapons.
What happened in Minnesota v. Dickerson?
By a 6-to-3 vote, however, the court held that the officer in this case had gone beyond the limits of a lawful patdown search before he could determine that the object was contraband, making the search and the subsequent seizure unlawful under the Fourth Amendment. State v. Dickerson, 469 N.W.
When was reasonable suspicion created?
A Terry stop, or a stop and frisk, is a brief police detention and limited search based on reasonable suspicion. The name comes from the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which established the legal standard for this stop.
Did Terry v. Ohio establish reasonable suspicion?
In this case, the Court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit police from stopping a person they have reasonable suspicion to believe had committed a crime, and frisking that person if they reasonably believe that person to be armed.
Reasonable Suspicion - Prosecutor Explains
Why is Terry vs. Ohio important?
In June 1968, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and set a precedent that allows police officers to interrogate and frisk suspicious individuals without probable cause for an arrest, providing that the officer can articulate a reasonable basis for the stop and frisk.
What is Terry frisk known for?
A Terry stop is another name for stop and frisk; the name came from the U.S Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio. The Court in Terry held that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, meaning that the stop-and-frisk cannot be unreasonable.
What exactly is reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that allows law enforcement to briefly stop and question individuals based on specific facts or circumstances that suggest criminal activity. It is more than just a hunch but does not require the higher standard of probable cause needed for an arrest or search.
What happened in the Florida v Bostick case?
Florida v. Bostick (1991) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that held random police searches of bus passengers, where officers ask for consent, are not a per se Fourth Amendment violation, establishing the key test: would a reasonable person feel free to terminate the encounter or refuse the request, not whether they could physically leave the bus. The Court ruled against the Florida Supreme Court's blanket ban on such bus sweeps, stating the location alone doesn't create a seizure, but remanded the case for a determination if Bostick's specific consent was voluntary given the circumstances, like the presence of badges and a weapon.
Are terry stops illegal?
In California, a "stop and frisk" (Terry stop) is a legal procedure that allows police to briefly detain someone and conduct a limited pat-down search if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The stop is based on reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior.
What happened in Minnesota v Carter?
Carter. Significance: The Supreme Court held that guests in a private home had no expectation of privacy if they had no personal relationship with the householder and were in the home for a few hours purely to conduct a business transaction.
What was the decision in Davis v United States?
United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established that the right to counsel can only be legally asserted by an "unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel."
Who won the case of Dickerson v United States?
In the year 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion on the 1997 case of Dickerson. The Court held that Miranda is a Constitutional decision and therefore could not be overruled by an Act of Congress. Miranda was affirmed and declared a Constitutional Rule.
Which case established the reasonable suspicion standard for brief investigative stops?
The first case is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1 (1968). This case involved a police officer who observed two men walking back and forth in front of a store window 24 times.
What happened to TLO after the case?
T.L.O. was found delinquent, and was put on probation for one year.
What is the Graham v. Connor case?
Graham v. Connor (1989) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case establishing that police use-of-force claims must be judged by the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, not subjective intent, meaning officers' actions are assessed from a reasonable officer's perspective on the scene, considering the severity of the crime, threat level, and resistance. The story involves diabetic Mr. Graham, who, experiencing an insulin reaction, was mistakenly tackled and restrained by officers (like Officer Connor) who thought he was drunk or involved in a crime, leading to injuries and a crucial ruling on police conduct.
What was the outcome of Strickland v. Washington?
The trial judge told Washington that he had "a great deal of respect for people who are willing to step forward and admit their responsibility." Finding numerous aggravating circumstances and no significant mitigating circumstances, the trial judge sentenced Washington to death on each of the murder counts.
What was the outcome of the Duren v Missouri case?
8–1 decision for Duren
The Supreme Court held that Duren's statistical evidence sufficiently proved that Jackson County's jury selection process violated his constitutional rights. Duren showed an underrepresented “distinctive” group resulting from Jackson County's practice of exempting women.
What happened in Bostock v Clayton County?
In Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), the United States Supreme Court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination and unjust termination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
What case defines reasonable suspicion?
Precedent. In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a punishable crime.
What is reasonable suspicion in Terry v Ohio?
Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the ...
Is probable cause 51%?
Some courts and scholars have suggested probable cause could, in some circumstances, allow for a fact to be established as true to a standard of less than 51%, but as of August 2019, the United States Supreme Court has never ruled that the quantification of probable cause is anything less than 51%.
What were Terry Fox's last words?
Terry Fox's famous last words, often quoted from his message of perseverance, were: "If I don't make it, the Marathon of Hope must continue," emphasizing that his mission for cancer research couldn't end with him. While this summarizes his spirit, he also expressed hope and determination in other moments, telling his parents, "if there is any way I can get out there again and finish, I will," as he was being taken for treatment in 1980, notes Reddit user.
Can you refuse a Terry Frisk?
if a person who has engaged in no suspicious activity wishes to avoid interacting with the police, even for a brief stop and especially for a pat-down frisk, then they have the right to do so, under the U.S. Supreme Court's Terry.
Why did frisk turn evil?
Their villainous acts, as well as their type and status, are completely dependent on the player's choice, meaning that if the player chooses to do evil acts, so will Frisk.