Stop and frisk: the power and the obligation of the police.

• Author: Inbau, Fred E.
• Position: Originally published in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 59, p. 333, 1968 - Reprint

On June 10, the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Terry v. Ohio, rendered a decision that will greatly aid the police in their efforts to prevent crime and apprehend criminals. That decision, however, must not be interpreted by the police as a green light for indiscriminate, arbitrary stopping and frisking, or for any other unworthy purpose.

Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., a non-partisan, non-political, not-for-profit educational corporation, which was founded last Summer for the purpose of advancing the cause of effective law enforcement, filed an "amicus curiae" (friend of the Court) brief in the Terry case last November. It urged the Court to rule as it did.

Upon the reasonable assumption that our brief had a persuasive effect upon the Supreme Court, we feel privileged to now admonish the police to assume the proper responsibility that must accompany this privilege so newly sanctioned by the Court.

The Terry decision only authorizes action upon reasonable suspicion of criminality and a frisking reasonably necessary for the officer's protection. And all this must be performed in a reasonable manner.

The Court's opinion sets up general guidelines for the police. The actual holding of the case, however, indicates that the Court intended to confine the power to "stop" to situations which clearly call for investigation of criminally suspicious circumstances and the power of "frisk" to situations where there is a probability that the person to be frisked or searched is armed and may bc dangerous to the officer or other citizens. The Court said:

"... where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous; where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries; and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken." Of course...