Terry v. Ohio (1968)
Terry v. Ohio (1968): Reasonable Suspicion and Stop-and-Frisk in Texas
Police need specific facts — not just a hunch — to stop and frisk you.
Background
Cleveland Detective Martin McFadden observed John Terry and others pacing back and forth outside a store as if preparing for a robbery. McFadden approached and performed a quick pat-down (a “frisk”), finding a concealed weapon. Terry argued the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
Questions Presented
- Can police briefly detain someone with less than probable cause?
- Can they frisk for weapons based only on reasonable suspicion?
Majority Opinion — Chief Justice Earl Warren
Holding: Police may conduct: (1) a brief stop if they reasonably suspect criminal activity, and (2) a limited frisk if they reasonably suspect the person is armed and dangerous.
Warren emphasized the balance between personal liberty and officer safety. The opinion created the modern framework for police street encounters: reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts.” A frisk cannot be a broad evidence search — only a protective pat-down for weapons. If police exceed that scope, suppression applies.
Terry transformed policing nationwide and remains central to criminal defense practice. Every detention, every pat-down in Texas courtrooms is measured against this decision. The State must articulate real facts — nervousness alone or being in a “high-crime area” is not enough. For many Montgomery County clients charged with weapon or drug offenses, a successful Terry challenge can mean evidence is excluded — and charges dismissed.