Also known as:Terry patdown · Terry frisk · Terry stop and frisk · Terry stop · stop and frisk
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A limited protective frisk of a suspect's outer clothing for weapons. The frisk is permissible during a lawful Terry stop when an officer possesses reasonable suspicion, based on specific and articulable facts, that the suspect is armed and dangerous.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Predictive Tip Supports Patdown
Tyler Taylor received an anonymous tip that accurately predicted a suspect would arrive at a specific corner, meet a known associate, and exchange a package. Officers approached, conducted a brief stop, and performed a Terry pat down that revealed a concealed firearm. The predictive details supplied the reasonable suspicion needed to justify the limited outer-clothing frisk.
Bare Description Insufficient for Frisk
Theo Thomas received an anonymous tip describing only a man's clothing and location with no predictive details. Officers stopped and patted down Theo anyway, recovering nothing. Because the tip lacked indicia of reliability, the Terry pat down exceeded constitutional bounds and the evidence was suppressed.
Tanya Tang was lawfully stopped and subjected to a Terry pat down. The officer felt a small, hard object in her pocket whose incriminating character was immediately apparent, allowing seizure without further manipulation. The pat down remained within Terry limits because the officer did not squeeze or explore beyond what was necessary to confirm the item was contraband.
Officer Experience Informs Suspicion
Tiffany Torres lingered near a closed pharmacy at night, repeatedly checking her waistband while glancing at passing cars. An experienced officer recognized the behavior as consistent with concealing a weapon and conducted a Terry pat down that uncovered a handgun. The officer's training permitted the inference of danger that justified the limited frisk.
Classic Terry Frisk Facts
Trevor Tate and another man paced in front of a store window, conferring repeatedly in a manner suggesting they were casing the premises. An officer with years on the beat stopped them and performed a Terry pat down that revealed revolvers. The specific, articulable facts of suspicious conduct supported the protective frisk for weapons.
Terry v. Ohio392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968)
On October 31, 1963, Cleveland police detective Martin McFadden, a 39-year veteran assigned to downtown Cleveland for 30 years, observed John W. Terry and Richard Chilton standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue.
McFadden took up a post of observation 300 to 400 feet away. He watched as the two men walked back and forth along Huron Road, pausing repeatedly to look in the window of a store before conferring with each other. This pattern repeated roughly a dozen times over ten to twelve minutes.
A third man, Katz, joined them briefly before departing, after which Terry and Chilton followed the same path. By this time McFadden had become thoroughly suspicious that the men were casing the store for a robbery and feared they might be armed.
McFadden approached the three men in front of Zucker's store, identified himself as a police officer, and asked their names. When they mumbled responses, he grabbed Terry, spun him around, patted down the outer clothing of his overcoat, and felt a pistol in the left breast pocket.
He removed a .38-caliber revolver from Terry's pocket and ordered the men into the store, where he similarly frisked Chilton and discovered another revolver while finding no weapons on Katz. Terry and Chilton were arrested and charged with carrying concealed weapons.
Prior to trial they moved to suppress the revolvers as the product of an unlawful search. The trial court denied the motion after hearing McFadden's testimony, finding that the officer had reasonable cause to believe the defendants were acting suspiciously and that the frisk was necessary for his protection. After the denial, Terry and Chilton waived jury trial, were convicted, and sentenced to one to three years in the penitentiary. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court of Ohio dismissed the appeal, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Tabitha Taylor was merely present in a tavern when officers executed a warrant. Without individualized suspicion that she was armed, an officer conducted a Terry pat down and found drugs. The frisk violated the Fourth Amendment because mere presence does not supply the reasonable suspicion required for a protective patdown.
Ybarra v. Illinois444 U.S. 85 (1979)
On March 1, 1976, a special agent of the Illinois Bureau of Investigation presented a complaint for a search warrant to an Illinois circuit court judge. The complaint recited that a reliable informant had observed fifteen to twenty-five tin-foil packets on the person of the bartender Greg and behind the bar at the Aurora Tap Tavern over the weekend of February 28 and 29. The informant had seen such packets on Greg and in a drawer on at least ten other occasions. The informant had been told by Greg that he would have heroin for sale on March 1.
On the strength of this complaint the judge issued a warrant authorizing the search of the Aurora Tap Tavern and the person of Greg the bartender for heroin, contraband, other controlled substances, money, instrumentalities, and narcotics paraphernalia.
In the late afternoon of March 1, 1976, seven or eight officers proceeded to the tavern. Upon entering they announced their purpose and advised all those present that they were going to conduct a cursory search for weapons. One officer then patted down each of the nine to thirteen customers present while the remaining officers searched the premises. The officer who frisked the patrons found Ventura Ybarra standing by a pinball machine. In the first patdown the officer felt a cigarette pack with objects in it but did not remove it. After completing the process the officer returned to Ybarra two to ten minutes later, relocated and retrieved the pack from Ybarra's pants pocket, and found six tinfoil packets containing a brown powdery substance that later proved to be heroin.
Ybarra was subsequently indicted by an Illinois grand jury for the unlawful possession of a controlled substance. He filed a pretrial motion to suppress the contraband seized from his person. At the suppression hearing the State sought to justify the search by reference to an Illinois statute authorizing officers to detain and search persons found on premises being searched pursuant to a warrant. The trial court denied the motion, finding that the search had been conducted under the authority of the statute to prevent the disposal or concealment of things described in the warrant. The case proceeded to a bench trial and Ybarra was found guilty.
On appeal the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the statute was not unconstitutional in its application to the facts of the case because the search occurred in a one-room bar where heroin was being sold, the packets could easily have been concealed, and Ybarra was not an innocent stranger having no connection with the premises. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Ybarra's petition for leave to appeal. There followed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction.
What level of suspicion is required before an officer may conduct a Terry pat down?
An officer must possess reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Mere presence in a high-crime area or a hunch is insufficient.
Supporting sources
May an officer reach directly into clothing during a Terry pat down without first conducting an outer-clothing frisk?
Yes, when the officer has specific information that a weapon is located in a precise spot such as a waistband, the officer may reach directly to that location rather than performing a general pat down first.
Supporting sources
Does an anonymous tip alone justify a Terry pat down?
An anonymous tip can justify a Terry pat down only when it bears sufficient indicia of reliability, such as accurate predictions of the suspect's future movements that demonstrate inside knowledge.
Supporting sources
What happens if an officer manipulates an object beyond what is necessary to determine it is a weapon?
The seizure becomes unlawful because the manipulation exceeds the limited scope of a Terry pat down and violates the plain-feel doctrine.
Supporting sources
Can an officer's training and experience help establish reasonable suspicion for a Terry pat down?
Yes, officers may draw on their training and experience to interpret otherwise innocuous conduct as indicating that a suspect is armed and dangerous under the totality of the circumstances.
Supporting sources
392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)
…security is as important as the right to be free from unreasonable searches of private premises. Unquestionably, the officer’s stop and frisk of Terry amounted to a “search” and “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. We must decide whether these actions were reasonable. The reasonableness of any particular…