What is the Terry v. Ohio case?
Asked by: Lambert Krajcik Sr. | Last update: January 29, 2026Score: 4.1/5 (44 votes)
Terry v. Ohio (1968) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that established the "stop and frisk" legal standard, allowing police to briefly detain and pat down individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in a crime and may be armed and dangerous, even without probable cause for an arrest. This ruling balanced Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches with officers' need to investigate suspicious behavior and ensure their safety, creating the basis for "Terry stops".
What happened in the Terry v. Ohio case?
majority opinion by Earl Warren. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry.
What was the Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio quizlet?
The Supreme Court ruled in Terry v. Ohio that a stop is constitutional if the officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is about to commit a crime.
How does Terry v. Ohio affect us today?
The Impact
Terry v. Ohio established the legal framework for stop and frisk procedures, granting law enforcement officers the ability to make quick decisions in the field to prevent potential crimes and protect their safety.
What is the Terry law?
During a Terry stop, police can conduct a pat-down search (frisk) to search for weapons only if they have a justifiable belief that you are armed and dangerous. During frisks, police can only pat down your outer clothing. They cannot reach under your clothing or in your pockets unless they plainly feel contraband.
Terry v. Ohio Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained
What states are Terry stop States?
The following states require stop-and-frisk data collection:
- Alabama.
- California.
- Connecticut.
- Florida.
- Illinois.
- Louisiana.
- Maryland.
- Massachusetts.
Can I legally cuss out a cop?
It's generally not illegal to curse at a police officer in the U.S. because of First Amendment protections for free speech, but it can lead to arrest if the language crosses into "fighting words," threats, or disrupts public order, potentially resulting in charges like disorderly conduct or resisting arrest, depending on state laws and the officer's interpretation of the situation. While cursing alone is usually protected, actions like shaking fists, spitting, or making threats can remove that protection and lead to criminal charges.
Do you need probable cause for a Terry stop?
The law is clear that police may stop on less than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is enough to justify a stop. A stop involves some degree of police coercion less than a custodial arrest, such as a simple command to stop while purposefully blocking the person's path.
Was Terry v. Ohio overturned?
On June 10, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8–1 decision against Terry that upheld the constitutionality of the "stop-and-frisk" procedure as long as the police officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime or is in the process of committing a crime, and ...
What should I do if wrongly stopped?
Here's a list of our recommendations on what to do if you believe you have been falsely arrested.
- Stay Calm and Composed. ...
- Do Not Resist Arrest. ...
- Assert Your Right to Remain Silent. ...
- Request an Attorney Immediately. ...
- Gather Evidence. ...
- Check for Video Footage. ...
- File a Complaint. ...
- Explore Your Legal Options.
What defines the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio the best?
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.
What does the Fifth Amendment say about affected property owners must?
The Fifth Amendment of the Federal Constitution provides that "private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What case strengthens Terry v. Ohio?
The case that strengthens Terry v. Ohio is Miranda v. Arizona, as it reinforces the rights of individuals during police interrogations.
Why is it called a Terry stop?
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 was Terry frisk's profession?
Terry Frisk - Retired Finance and Accounting Professional | LinkedIn.
Is Ohio stop and frisk?
Yes. In the 1968 Terry v. Ohio decision, the United States Supreme Court found stop-and-frisk practices to be constitutional provided these criteria are met: The detaining officer must have a reasonable suspicion—based on specific facts and circumstances—that a crime has been or is about to be committed.
What was the outcome of the Terry decision?
The outcome of Terry v. Ohio (1968) was the establishment of the "stop and frisk" doctrine, where the Supreme Court ruled that police can briefly detain (stop) and pat down (frisk) individuals for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion (not necessarily probable cause) that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous, upholding the officer's actions and affirming Terry's conviction. This decision created a legal standard allowing limited searches for officer safety, balancing public safety with individual rights under the Fourth Amendment.
What is the 3rd and 4th Amendment?
The Third Amendment prohibits the government from forcing private citizens to house soldiers, while the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, requiring warrants based on probable cause for lawful searches. Both amendments stem from colonial grievances against British rule and aim to secure property and privacy rights against government intrusion, forming key parts of the Bill of Rights.
What constitutes reasonable suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure to assess the legality of a police officer's decision to stop or search an individual. Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring.
Can a cop detain me without telling me why?
A legal detention must be based on reasonable suspicion while an unlawful holding is without justification. If you're being detained with no valid reason you may be having your rights infringed upon.
Can you handcuff someone during a Terry stop?
In United States v. In, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a Terry stop does not escalate into an improper arrest just because the officers handcuffed the defendant. Handcuffing was a reasonable safety precaution, given the totality of the circumstances.
Can a cop take your keys during a traffic stop?
Generally speaking, a cop cannot take your motorcycle keys out of your bike unless he has a valid reason to do so. By a valid reason, it means the cop should have a reasonable suspicion that the concerned rider is a threat to the safety and to ensure public safety.
Can I tell a cop to shut up?
Freedom of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, so non-threatening verbal abuse of a police officer is not in itself criminal behavior, though some courts have disagreed on what constitutes protected speech in this regard.
Can you give a cop the finger?
In the U.S., flipping off a police officer is generally considered protected free speech under the First Amendment as a non-threatening gesture, but it's not recommended because context matters, and it can escalate into charges like disorderly conduct if it's part of broader offensive behavior, harassment, or incites a disturbance, potentially leading to legal issues even if charges are later dismissed. Courts have ruled that officers can't arrest someone solely for the gesture itself, as it's a form of expression, but related actions can give them grounds to act.
Is it illegal to say the f word in public?
Saying the "f word" in public isn't automatically illegal, but it can become a crime if it falls under categories like "fighting words," harassment, disorderly conduct, or disturbing the peace, especially if directed at someone to provoke them or if it's extremely offensive in a specific context, though general profanity is usually protected by the First Amendment. The key is the context, intent, and potential to incite violence or disrupt public order, not just the word itself.