When can the police stop a person on the street and pat him or her down? The landmark case on this subject came from the U.S. Supreme Court: Terry v. Ohio

In order to stop someone on the street, reasonable suspicion is required (see below). The stop may not lead to a frisk unless reasonable suspicion for the frisk develops (see below)

Reasonable suspicion for a STOP: Specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonably prudent officer in light of his experience to believe that a crime is afoot (ex: defendant is casing the joint")

Reasonable suspicion for a FRISK: Specific and articulable facts to lead a reasonably prudent officer in light of his experience to believe that the suspect is armed and presently dangerous

Terry (Reasonable Suspicion):
Stop and Frisk - need reasonable suspicion (no warrant, no probable cause)
When officer encounters "suspect" on street,  can stop (seizure) and frisk (search) if reasonable suspicion
Officer has to ID himself and make reasonable inquiries

(still afforded 4th amend protection, needs to be reasonable)

2 different levels of inquiry:
1) stop
2) frisk

Stop on street
Officer can stop someone on street if officer has reasonable suspicion
TEST: specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonably prudent officer in light of his experience to believe that  criminal activity is afoot.
        articulable facts and reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts.

stop alone does not justify a frisk
it is required that the cop:
*  ID himself as a cop, AND
* make reason inquiry as to the person's identity

Frisk/PatDown
A stop doesn't automatically lead to a frisk. If the police stops the suspect, identifies himself as a cop, and makes a reasonable inquiry as the person's identity and purpose, and the person adequately dispels the officer's suspicions, then the officer has no reasonable suspicion for a pat-down. The officer can only pat the suspect down if he has reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and presently dangerous.

For a pat-down/frisk, there must be:
Reasonable suspicion that person/suspect is armed and presently dangerous
search limted in scope for weapons only, outer clothing (if he finds weapons, probable cause for arrest and can now do full-body search).

When officer frisks the outer clothing, he cannot seize (remove) an object unless its identity as a weapon or contraband is immediately apparent. He cannot slide, squeeze, or manipulate it to find out what it is (Plain Feel Doctrine - see Search and Seizure) Although the search in a "Terry frisk" is limited in scope to weapons, under the "Plain Feel Doctrine" if the officer, when lawfully "on the premises" of the person's outer clothing, feels an object that is immediately apparent as contraband (drugs, etc.) then the officer can seize the item.

If the officer unlawfully seizes an item in violation of the 4th Amendment, then the item will not be allowed into evidence at trial.

TEST for Frisk: spec and articulable facts to lead a reasonably prudent officer in light of his experience to believe that the suspect is armed and presently dangerous

TERRY: scope test - stop must be temporary and last no longer than necc to determin if officer's suspicions are justified and investigative means must be as least intrusive as possible to satisfy or dispel officer's suspicions

~~~~
2 step inquiry to detemine if search and seizure reasonable
1) whether officer's actions were justified at inception (inception)
2) whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place (scope)
        too long? too intrusive?
~~~~~~
decision to seize/stop and pat-down cannot be used to harass or discriminate

Back to Legal Clinic