Also known as: Terry stops · investigative stop · Terry detention
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A brief investigative detention of a person by police based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, allowing limited questioning and a pat-down for weapons if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous.
Tessa Takahashi received a call from an informant describing a woman who would leave a specific apartment at a set time, enter a particular car, and drive to a motel while carrying cocaine. Officers observed the woman follow the exact sequence of actions predicted in the tip. They detained her briefly to investigate the suspected drug transport.
Tanya Tang stood near a rail yard at 3 a.m. repeatedly shining a flashlight on container seals and retreating when locomotives passed. A veteran rail officer familiar with cargo theft patterns inferred from the timing, location, and evasive actions that theft preparation was underway. The officer detained Tang for questioning.
Tiffany Torres was stopped after officers saw her reach into the passenger compartment of her vehicle. The officers observed a knife on the floor and, fearing additional weapons within reach, conducted a limited search of the areas she could access before allowing her to reenter.
In a rural area of Michigan one evening shortly after midnight, Deputies Howell and Lewis observed a car traveling erratically and at excessive speed. The officers observed the car turning down a side road, where it swerved off into a shallow ditch. The officers stopped to investigate. Long, the only occupant of the automobile, met the deputies at the rear of the car, which was protruding from the ditch onto the road. The door on the driver's side of the vehicle was left open. Deputy Howell requested Long to produce his operator's license, but he did not respond. After the request was repeated, Long produced his license. Long again failed to respond when Howell requested him to produce the vehicle registration. After another repeated request, Long, who Howell thought appeared to be under the influence of something, turned from the officers and began walking toward the open door of the vehicle. The officers followed Long and both observed a large hunting knife on the floorboard of the driver's side of the car. The officers then stopped Long's progress and subjected him to a Terry protective patdown, which revealed no weapons. Long and Deputy Lewis then stood by the rear of the vehicle while Deputy Howell shined his flashlight into the interior of the vehicle, but did not actually enter it. The purpose of Howell's action was to search for other weapons. The officer noticed that something was protruding from under the armrest on the front seat. He knelt in the vehicle and lifted the armrest. He saw an open pouch on the front seat, and upon flashing his light on the pouch, determined that it contained what appeared to be marihuana. After Deputy Howell showed the pouch and its contents to Deputy Lewis, Long was arrested for possession of marihuana. A further search of the interior of the vehicle, including the glovebox, revealed neither more contraband nor the vehicle registration. The officers decided to impound the vehicle. Deputy Howell opened the trunk, which did not have a lock, and discovered inside it approximately 75 pounds of marihuana. The Barry County Circuit Court denied Long's motion to suppress the marihuana taken from both the interior of the car and its trunk. He was subsequently convicted of possession of marihuana. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Long's conviction, holding that the search of the passenger compartment was valid as a protective search under Terry. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed. The court held that the sole justification of the Terry search, protection of the police officers and others nearby, cannot justify the search in this case. The marihuana found in Long's trunk was considered by the court below to be the fruit of the illegal search of the interior, and was also suppressed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the authority of a police officer to protect himself by conducting a Terry-type search of the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle during the lawful investigatory stop of the occupant of the vehicle.
View caseTheodore Tucker and another man paced repeatedly in front of a store window, conferring and returning to peer inside. An experienced officer watching the pattern concluded they were casing the store for a robbery and detained them briefly to investigate.
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.
View caseTamara Tan's suitcase was removed from a flight and held at the airport while officers arranged a dog sniff. The brief seizure allowed officers to confirm or dispel suspicion of narcotics without immediately arresting Tan.
Respondent Raymond J. Place arrived at Miami International Airport on August 8, 1980, aboard a nonstop flight from New York City. Two DEA agents, alerted to his arrival, approached him in the baggage claim area after observing his behavior while purchasing a ticket. The agents requested his airline ticket and identification, which Place provided, and he consented to a search of his two checked suitcases. Because his flight was about to depart, the agents decided not to search the luggage at that time. Prompted by Place's remark that he recognized them as police, the agents examined the address tags on his luggage and discovered discrepancies. Further investigation showed that the addresses did not exist and that the telephone number belonged to a different address. The Miami agents relayed this information to DEA authorities in New York. At La Guardia Airport, two DEA agents approached Place after he claimed his bags. Place refused consent to a search of his luggage. The agents informed him they would take the luggage to obtain a search warrant, and Place declined to accompany them. The agents transported the bags to Kennedy Airport for a sniff test by a trained narcotics detection dog. Approximately 90 minutes after the seizure, the dog alerted positively to one bag. Due to the late Friday afternoon timing, the agents held the luggage until Monday, when they obtained a warrant and discovered 1,125 grams of cocaine inside. Place was indicted under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The District Court denied his motion to suppress, he pleaded guilty reserving the right to appeal, and the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
View caseTonya Takahashi was pulled over for a traffic violation. During the stop an officer developed reasonable suspicion that she had entered the country unlawfully and detained her briefly to verify immigration status under federal standards.
In 2010, the State of Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, commonly known as S. B. 1070. The statute's stated purpose is to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. Arizona officials described the law as establishing a policy of attrition through enforcement. S. B. 1070 contains four provisions that became the focus of litigation. Section 3 makes it a state misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document in violation of federal law. Section 5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona. Section 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States. Section 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make reasonable efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government. The United States filed suit against Arizona in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to enjoin enforcement of these provisions. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the four provisions from taking effect. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction in 2011. Arizona experiences significant effects from unlawful immigration. Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in the State each year, and unauthorized aliens are estimated to comprise almost six percent of the population. In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, unauthorized aliens are reported to account for a disproportionate share of serious crime. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
View caseAn anonymous tip can support reasonable suspicion when it carries sufficient indicia of reliability, especially if it accurately predicts the suspect's future movements indicating inside knowledge of criminal activity.
Reasonable suspicion is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances, and officers may draw on training and experience to interpret conduct that might appear innocent to an untrained observer.
When an officer has specific information that a weapon is hidden in a particular location such as a waistband, the officer may reach directly into the clothing to retrieve it without first performing an outer pat-down.
Mere presence in a high-crime area is insufficient by itself to justify a Terry stop. Additional specific and articulable facts are required.
Under a valid stop-and-identify statute, refusal to state one's name during a lawful Terry stop can provide grounds for arrest, subject to a narrow Fifth Amendment exception if disclosure would itself be incriminating.
…aside in the context of this case, I think an additional word is in order concerning the matter of interrogation during an investigative stop. There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a policeman from addressing questions to anyone on the streets. Absent special circumstances, the person approached may not be detained…