Stop and Frisk is Constitutional - Primer for Media & Certain Politicians
Updated On: Sep 29, 2016
Let's put one thing to bed. It would be wise for the media and some politicians to understand the governing constitutional decision and standard for "Stop and Frisk" (Terry stop). Stop and frisk (Terry stop) is based on reasonable suspicion and is completely constitutional under the landmark 8 to 1 SCOTUS decision Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Also reference unanimous SCOTUS decision Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009).
Every certified police officer is well versed in the constitutional standards and requirements dictating the legality of a "Terry" stop. "Stop and frisk" is based on the legal standard of "reasonable suspicion" and is constitutional under the 4th Amendment. It is an important tool for law enforcement that was in use prior to the Terry decision, and continues as such since that constitutional decision.
The constitutionality of "Stop and Frisk" is not in doubt; where questions or challenges arise is in it's application. Basically "stop and frisk", absent of articulable reasonable suspicion under the limitations of "Terry", is unconstitutional and a violation of the 4th amendment. Case briefs attached to this article in PDF available for both download or review in addition to the SCOTUS links below.
Follow these links to review the SCOTUS decision on both Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009):