Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Terry stop
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== Origins == {| class="wikitable" style="float:right; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; width: 400px; margin-left:2em" |+ align="bottom" |''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'' used only the "reasonableness clause" from the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stelzner |first1=Luis G. |title=The Fourth Amendment: The Reasonableness and Warrant Clauses |url=https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1539&context=nmlr |journal=New Mexico Law Review |date=1980 |volume=10 |issue=1}}</ref> |- | <small>''The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...</small> ! style="background: LightSalmon;"|Reasonableness |- | <small>''...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''</small> ! Warrant |} The concept of a ''Terry'' stop originated in the 1968 [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case ''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'', in which a police officer detained three [[Cleveland]] men on the street behaving suspiciously, as if they were preparing for [[armed robbery]]. The police conducted a pat down search and discovered a revolver, and subsequently, two of the men were convicted of [[carrying a concealed weapon]].<ref name=Oyez-2018>{{cite web |title=''Terry v. Ohio'' |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 |website=Oyez |access-date=13 November 2018}}</ref> The men appealed their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the search in which the revolver was found was illegal under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]. This brief detention and search were deemed permissible by the court, judging that the officer had [[reasonable suspicion]] which could be articulated (not just a hunch) that the person detained may be armed and dangerous. This was not mere "suspicion" but "reasonable suspicion" which could be articulated at a later date.<ref name=samaha>{{cite book | last1=Samaha | first1=Joel | title=Criminal Procedure | date=2011 | publisher=Cengage Learning | isbn=978-1133171171 | edition=8th | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=edw8AAAAQBAJ}}</ref> This decision was made during a period of great social unrest in the United States in the 1960s, with rising crime, [[Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War|opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War]] and the [[civil rights movement]], and [[Race riots in the United States|race riots]]. It was thought that law enforcement needed to be provided with tools to deal with the unrest and new issues of urban crime. Some criticized the decision for watering down the [[prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures]]; others praised it for balancing safety and individual rights.{{r|samaha|p=94}}
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)