Sibron v. New York
- Decided
- June 10, 1968
- Docket
- 63
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,326 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that, although a state may develop its own search and seizure law, the state may not authorize police conduct that infringes Fourth Amendment rights — Gates v. Texas Deparment of Protective & Regulatory Services (2008)
- ruling that the officer “must be able to point to particular facts from which he reason ably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous” — State v. Arthur (1997)
- holding that "[w]hen the policeman grabbed Peters by the collar, he abruptly 'seized' him and curtailed his freedom of movement'' — Henry v. Purnell (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.
These are companion cases to No. 67, Terry v. Ohio, ante, p. 1, decided today. They present related questions under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, but the cases arise in the context of New York’s “stop-and-frisk” law, N. Y. Code Crim. Proc. § 180-a. This statute provides:
“1. A police officer may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or any of the offenses specified in section five hundred fifty-two of this chapter, and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)Read the full opinion
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.