You’ve been detained and patted down: was it legal?

The Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio helps answer this question.

Why should you care about a Supreme Court case decided more than 50 years ago? Because Supreme Court cases are binding. This means whatever the Supreme Court decides, their ruling applies to all states. To understand exactly what the Supreme Court decided in Terry v. Ohio, let’s lay out the basic facts of the case…

One afternoon while patrolling, a police officer noticed two men engaged in some unusual behavior. The officer observed the men walking past a store and peering inside the front window more than ten times. The officer suspected that the men were planning a robbery. However, the officer had no probable cause to arrest either man. By all practical purposes, the men were just walking back and forth on a city street.

However, based on his observations, combined with his investigative experience, the officer had reasonable suspicion that a robbery was going to take place.

The officer then decided to investigate further and walked up to the men to ask some questions. Still suspicious after questioning and concerned that the men were armed, he decided to search the men for weapons. Upon patting them down, the officer discovered that they were each armed with a gun. The two men were charged with carrying concealed weapons and were found guilty.

The defense attorney for one of the men, John Terry, appealed the case to higher courts on the grounds that his 4th Amendment rights had been violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. [1] However, the Supreme Court upheld Mr. Terry’s conviction and ruled that the 4th Amendment does not prevent law enforcement from briefly detaining a person or doing a quick pat-down-search of the outer clothing for weapons when an officer has “reasonable suspicion.”

Defining what reasonable suspicion means, the Court provided guidance for future cases by stating that it is more than a mere “hunch,” requiring officers to explain their actions by pointing to “specific and articulable facts which, taken together… reasonably warrant [the officer’s behavior].”

Cases like Mr. Terry’s are frequent. In the last 50 years, Minnesota Courts have dealt with numerous situations and have ruled on what does and does not mean “reasonable suspicion.” Today, it is not enough to simply know your rights; you need to understand how Courts have interpreted those rights in the past to understand how they apply to you today.

To protect your freedom, understand your rights.

[1] Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Legal Disclaimer: This information is provided for educational purposes and is not legal advice. If you have questions regarding a legal matter, please contact our office for assistance or reach out to an attorney who may be able to help you understand how the law may apply to different circumstances.