Chief Justice: Warren delivered the opinion of the Court
Key Issues
Fourth Amendment: This case raises significant issues about the Fourth Amendment, particularly its application during street encounters between citizens and police officers investigating suspicious behavior.
Conviction: Terry was convicted for carrying a concealed weapon, with evidence obtained by Officer McFadden after a stop and frisk.
Facts of the Case
Officer McFadden observed Terry and another individual, Chilton, engaging in suspicious behavior in downtown Cleveland.
He witnessed them repeatedly walking past a store window and conferring, actions that he interpreted as preparation for a robbery.
McFadden approached them, identified himself, and conducted a pat-down search, discovering weapons on Terry and Chilton.
Terry and Chilton were charged with carrying concealed weapons.
Legal Arguments and Court Rationale
Reasonable Search and Seizure
Fourth Amendment Protection: The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Search and Seizure Defined: The Court clarified that a "stop" is a seizure and a "frisk" is a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Reasonable Suspicion: The Court established that police must have specific and articulable facts that justify the intrusion.
Stop and Frisk Doctrine
Investigative Stop: Police can stop and question individuals if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Frisk for Weapons: If an officer reasonably believes that a person is armed and dangerous, a limited search for weapons is permissible.
Distinction from Arrest: The search must be limited to what is necessary for the discovery of weapons, distinguishing it from a full search incident to an arrest.
Court’s Decision
Constitutionality: The Court upheld the legality of McFadden’s actions, stating that the "stop and frisk" was reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Evidence Admissibility: The revolvers found on Terry were admissible as evidence because the search was deemed reasonable.
Concurring Opinions
Justice Harlan: Emphasized the need for police to have reasonable grounds for a "stop" and the automatic right to frisk if the stop is justified.
Justice White: Highlighted the importance of interrogation during stops, stating that a brief detention for questioning is constitutional.
Dissenting Opinion
Justice Douglas: Argued that probable cause is necessary for any search and seizure, emphasizing the protection of individual liberties.
Implications
This case establishes guidelines for police conduct regarding "stop and frisk" procedures, balancing law enforcement needs with constitutional protections of individual rights.