NCJ Number
138030
Journal
Criminal Law Bulletin Volume: 28 Issue: 4 Dated: (July-August 1992) Pages: 336-381
Date Published
1992
Length
46 pages
Annotation
In this examination of Terry v. Ohio (1968), the landmark "stop and frisk" U.S. Supreme Court case, as well as recent related cases, the author argues that the dangers involved for police officers in every street encounter should be sufficient reason for them to frisk every individual they legitimately stop.
Abstract
An analysis of the "Terry" decision notes that although it permits officers to conduct frisks in the interest of their personal safety, such frisks can be initiated only if the officer "has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual." The author applies Chief Justice Warren's own "balancing test" to the current crime situation in America and concludes that when an officer legitimately stops a person pursuant to "Terry," the minimal intrusion involved in a frisk is always outweighed by concerns of officer safety. Thus, the frisk is always "reasonable" within the meaning of the fourth amendment. The article traces the roots of and reasons for the exclusionary rule and concludes that the U.S. Supreme Court, in determining whether or not to apply the rule, looks only to whether its application would deter future police conduct. The article then concludes that current frisk methodology cannot deter officers from conducting frisks in the majority of street encounters. The author points out that, although the Supreme Court has generally eschewed "bright lines" in "stops" and "frisks," it has nonetheless set several "bright lines" in other fourth amendment situations and should set one in this area. The article advises that the Federal courts of appeals have implicitly adopted this suggestion and have rarely excluded evidence of weapons found pursuant to a "Terry" frisk. 185 footnotes and a list of relevant court cases