Case law · Highest court · Federal

Terry v. Ohio

Decided
June 10, 1968
Docket
67
Status
Published
Jurisdiction
Federal

Cited 37,942 timesOverruled on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled on other grounds (not yet verified) · Phelps v. Ada County Sheriff Office

What later courts said

  • holding that a police officer who has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may conduct a brief investigative stop — Bailey v. United States (2013)
  • holding that when analyzing the reasonableness of a search or seizure, “it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard” — Freeman v. City of Santa Ana (1995)
  • recognizing that “a search which is reasonable at its inception may violate the Fourth Amendment by virtue of its intolerable intensity and scope” — United States v. Bennie Demetrius Washington (2007)

Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.

How the opinion begins

Mr. Chief Justice Warren delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case presents serious questions concerning the role of the Fourth Amendment in the confrontation on the street between the citizen and the policeman investigating suspicious circumstances.

Petitioner Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to the statutorily prescribed term of one to three years in the penitentiary.[1] Following [*5] the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress, the prosecution introduced in evidence two revolvers and a number of bullets seized from Terry and a codefendant, Richard Chilton,[2] by Cleveland Police Detective Martin McFadden. At the hearing on the motion to suppress this evidence, Officer McFadden testified that while he was patrolling in plain clothes in downtown Cleveland at approximately 2:30 in the afternoon of October 31, 1963, his attention was attracted by two men, Chilton and Terry, standing on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue. He had never seen the two men before, and he was unable to say precisely what first drew his eye to them. However, he testified that he had been a policeman for 39 years and a detective for 35 and that he had been assigned to patrol this vicinity of downtown Cleveland for shoplifters and pickpockets for 30 years. He explained that he had developed routine habits of observation over the years and that he would “stand and watch people or walk and watch people at many intervals of the day.” He added: “Now, in this case when I looked over they didn’t look right to me at the time.”

Cite this

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

Read the full opinion

Free account needed

Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.