U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

STOP AND FRISK RECONSIDERED

NCJ Number
69105
Journal
LEGAL POINTS Issue: 103 Dated: (1980) Pages: COMPLETE ISSUE
Date Published
1980
Length
4 pages
Annotation
THIS EDUCATIONAL AID FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS IS A REVIEW OF SUPREME COURT 'STOP AND FRISK' RULINGS IN TERRY V. OHIO, ADAMS V. WILLIAMS, AND YBARRA V. ILLINOIS.
Abstract
TERRY V. OHIO (1968) PERMITS THE FORCIBLE DETENTION OF A SUSPECT, WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, IN SITUATIONS WHERE THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER REASONABLY BELIEVES CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING. THIS DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTS A NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT, AND SUCH STOPS ARE TO BE PERMITTED ONLY WHERE THE OFFICERS CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR SUSPICIONS WERE BASED UPON REASONABLE INFERENCES DRAWN FROM SPECIFIC, ARTICULABLE, FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS. ALTHOUGH TERRY V. OHIO PERMITS LIMITED WEAPONS FRISKS BASED UPON A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT A SUSPECTED INDIVIDUAL IS ARMED, TEMPORARY DETENTIONS BASED UPON UNSUPPORTABLE SUSPICIONS OR 'HUNCHES' WILL NOT BE UPHELD. IN ADAMS V. WILLIAMS THE COURT UPHELD THE VALIDITY OF A WEAPONS AND NARCOTICS SEIZURE EVEN THOUGH THE OFFICER INVOLVED RELIED ON AN INFORMANT'S TIP, RATHER THAN PERSONAL OBSERVATION. IN REFUSING TO UPHOLD THE DEFENDANT'S CONVICTION IN YBARRA V. ILLINOIS (BECAUSE THE ARRESTING OFFICER HAD BEEN UNABLE TO ARTICULATE FACTUAL BASIS), THE COURT REAFFIRMED ITS COMMITMENT TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AS A MEANS OF DETERRING POLICE MISCONDUCT AND MAINTAINING JUDICIAL INTEGRITY. THE COURT MADE IT CLEAR THAT THE POLICE, IN EXECUTING A WARRANT AUTHORIZING A SEARCH OF AN ESTABLISHMENT AND A NAMED EMPLOYEE, MAY NOT SEARCH THE ESTABLISHMENT'S PATRONS WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE, AND MAY NOT EMPLOY STOP AND FRISK OR PROTECTIVE PAT-DOWN PROCEDURE WITHOUT AN ARTICULABLE BASIS IN FACT FROM WHICH IT COULD REASONABLY BE INFERRED THAT SUCH INDIVIDUALS WERE ARMED.