View source for Terry stop

{{Short description|Brief detainment by police in the United States}}
{{use mdy dates|date=July 2023}}
{{Police Investigative Stops}}

A '''''Terry'' stop''' in the United States allows the police to briefly [[Detention (imprisonment)|detain]] a person based on [[reasonable suspicion]] of involvement in criminal activity.<ref name=terry>{{cite web |title=''Terry v. Ohio'', 392 US 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968) |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17773604035873288886 |website=Google Scholar |access-date=September 11, 2019}}</ref><ref name=sokolow>{{cite web |title=''United States v. Sokolow'', 490 US 1, 109 S. Ct. 1581, 104 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1989) |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1799203374017461902 |website=Google Scholar |access-date=September 11, 2019}} ("In ''Terry v. Ohio'', 392 U. S. 1, 30 (1968), we held that the police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity "may be afoot," even if the officer lacks probable cause.")</ref> Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than [[probable cause]] which is needed for [[arrest]]. When police stop and [[Frisking|pat-down]] a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a '''stop and frisk'''. When police stop an automobile, this is known as a [[traffic stop]]. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a '''pretextual stop'''.

In the United States at the federal level, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] has decided many cases that define the intersection between policing and the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]] protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, [[United States Congress|Congress]] has not defined a baseline for police behavior. There has been some state action at both the legislative and judicial levels, and also some cities have passed laws on these issues.<ref>{{cite AV media | people=Barry Friedman, Tracey Meares, and Charles H. Ramsey, moderated by Jeffrey Rosen. | title=A Discussion on Privacy and Policing at the National Constitution Center | medium=Video | location=Philadelphia, PA | publisher=National Constitution Center |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8gZRCfwkvM |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211212/j8gZRCfwkvM| archive-date=2021-12-12 |url-status=live}}{{cbignore}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gorman |first1=Michael J. |title=Survey: State Search and Seizure Analogs |journal=Mississippi Law Journal |date=2007 |volume=77 |url=https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/09%20Gorman%202007.pdf}}</ref>

Some law academics are concerned that jurisprudence permitting ''Terry'' stops does not account for possible [[implicit bias]] of officers, and that this possibly results in [[racism in the United States|racially skewed]] decision-making.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web |last=Hutchins|first=Renee|date=2013|title=Stop Terry: Reasonable Suspicion, Race, and a Proposal to Limit Terry Stops|url=https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2405&context=fac_pubs|website=Digital Commons}}</ref> Communities that have high rates of incarceration may experience more intense and punitive policing and surveillance practices even during periods of time when general crime rates are decreasing.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Pettit|first1=Becky|last2=Gutierrez|first2=Carmen|date=May 2018|title=Mass Incarceration and Racial Inequality|journal=American Journal of Economics and Sociology|language=en|volume=77|issue=3–4|pages=1153–1182|doi=10.1111/ajes.12241|pmid=36213171 |pmc=9540942 }}</ref>

{{TOC level|2}}

== Origins ==

{| class="wikitable" style="float:right; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; width: 400px; margin-left:2em"
|+ align="bottom" |''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'' used only the "reasonableness clause" from the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stelzner |first1=Luis G. |title=The Fourth Amendment: The Reasonableness and Warrant Clauses |url=https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1539&context=nmlr |journal=New Mexico Law Review |date=1980 |volume=10 |issue=1}}</ref>
|-
| <small>''The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,...''</small>
! style="background: LightSalmon;"|Reasonableness
|-
| <small>''...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.''</small>
! Warrant
|}

The concept of a ''Terry'' stop originated in the 1968 [[Supreme Court of the United States|Supreme Court]] case ''[[Terry v. Ohio]]'', in which a police officer detained three [[Cleveland]] men on the street behaving suspiciously, as if they were preparing for [[armed robbery]]. The police conducted a pat down search and discovered a revolver, and subsequently, two of the men were convicted of [[carrying a concealed weapon]].<ref name=Oyez-2018>{{cite web |title=''Terry v. Ohio'' |url=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1967/67 |website=Oyez |access-date=13 November 2018}}</ref> The men appealed their case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the search in which the revolver was found was illegal under the [[Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution|Fourth Amendment]]. This brief detention and search were deemed permissible by the court, judging that the officer had [[reasonable suspicion]] which could be articulated (not just a hunch) that the person detained may be armed and dangerous. This was not mere "suspicion" but "reasonable suspicion" which could be articulated at a later date.<ref name=samaha>{{cite book | last1=Samaha | first1=Joel | title=Criminal Procedure | date=2011 | publisher=Cengage Learning | isbn=978-1133171171 | edition=8th | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=edw8AAAAQBAJ}}</ref>

This decision was made during a period of great social unrest in the United States in the 1960s, with rising crime, [[Opposition to United States involvement in the Vietnam War|opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War]] and the [[civil rights movement]], and [[Race riots in the United States|race riots]]. It was thought that law enforcement needed to be provided with tools to deal with the unrest and new issues of urban crime. Some criticized the decision for watering down the [[prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures]]; others praised it for balancing safety and individual rights.{{r|samaha|p=94}}

==Elements==

The United States Supreme Court held that where:  a police officer observes unusual conduct by a subject; the subject's conduct leads the officer reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and that the subject may be armed and presently dangerous; the officer identifies themselves as a police officer; the officer makes reasonable inquiries; and nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel the officer's reasonable fear for safety, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the subject in an attempt to discover weapons, and that such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourteenth Amendment, so that any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence.<ref>''Terry v. Ohio'', 392 U.S. 1, 30–31 (1968).</ref>

==Expansion through case law==
{{Main|Terry stop case law}}
===Reasonable suspicion===

{{Further|Reasonable suspicion}}
To possess reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must have "specific and articulable facts" that indicate that the person to be stopped is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity. Because officers usually do not have supervision when they encounter civilians, they have discretion regarding whom to stop.<ref name=":56">{{Cite journal|last1=Alpert|first1=Geoffrey P.|last2=Macdonald|first2=John M.|last3=Dunham|first3=Roger G.|title=Police Suspicion and Discretionary Decision Making During Citizen Stops|date=May 2005|url=http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00012.x|journal=Criminology|language=en|volume=43|issue=2|pages=407–434|doi=10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00012.x|issn=0011-1384|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Reasonable suspicion depends on the "[[totality of the circumstances]]".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Susskind|first1=R.S.|title=Race, Reasonable Articulable Suspicion, and Seizure |journal=American Criminal Law Review |date=1993 |volume=31 |page=327 |url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/amcrimlr31&div=20&id=&page=|access-date=13 November 2018}}</ref> Reasonable suspicion is a vague term, and the Supreme Court concluded that it is to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It often arises from a combination of facts, each of which would, in itself, not be enough justification for the stop.

{| class="wikitable" style="float:left; vertical-align: top; text-align: left; width: 350px; height: 200px; margin:1em 1em 1em 0em;"
! colspan="2" | Types of police-civilian encounters 
|-
! style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;" | Consensual encounter
| <small>Requires neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion</small>
|-
! style="background: LightSalmon; vertical-align: top; text-align: left;"| ''Terry'' stop (investigative detention)
| style="vertical-align: top;" | <small>Requires [[reasonable suspicion]]</small>
|-
! style="vertical-align: top; text-align: left;" | Arrest
| style="vertical-align: top;" | <small>Requires [[probable cause]]</small>
|}
The suspicion must be that of an individual person. Police officers primarily use situational factors based on criminal behavior to determine whether a stop is needed. In essence, when they witness a person behaving suspiciously or violating the law, they are constitutionally permitted to stop them. Other factors informing the decision include personal attitudes and the decision-making model in effect where the officer works. These subjective influences naturally create the opportunity for bias on the part of police officers who possess animus toward a certain class of people.<ref name=":56" />

The three types of primary sources that courts should accept in order to determine suspiciousness are information obtained from third parties, information based on the suspect's appearance and behavior and the time and place of the suspected offense. Officers can define what they believe is normal, and if and how the suspect deviates from this.<ref name=":56"/> Reasonable suspicion has been used for actions such as standing in the wrong place, nervousness, exceptional calmness or walking quickly in another direction.<ref name=":16"/> Officers' experiences may make them suspicious of behavior that is usually innocuous.<ref name=":82">{{Cite journal|last1=Cooper|first1=Hannah|last2=Moore|first2=Lisa|last3=Gruskin|first3=Sofia|last4=Krieger|first4=Nancy|date=July 2004|title=Characterizing Perceived Police Violence: Implications for Public Health|journal=American Journal of Public Health|volume=94|issue=7|pages=1109–1118|doi=10.2105/ajph.94.7.1109|issn=0090-0036|pmc=1448406|pmid=15226128}}</ref> For instance, a social interaction such as a hug or a handshake might be perceived as a drug deal.<ref name=":82"/> Merely identifying that a person belongs to a broad category, such as physical location, race, ethnicity or profile, is insufficient for reasonable suspicion. However, stop-and-frisk has been validated on the basis of furtive movements, inappropriate attire, carrying objects such as a television or a pillowcase (in English law, "[[going equipped]]"), vague, nonspecific answers to routine questions, refusal to identify oneself and appearing to be out of place.<ref>{{citation | first1=Kären M. |last1=Hess | first2=Christine Hess |last2=Orthmann | title=Criminal Investigation | edition=9th | year=2010 | page=100}}</ref>

Before 1968, the law required substantial evidence to impede liberty or seize property. However, the Fourth Amendment does not protect consensual encounters. In its ''Terry'' decision, the Supreme Court found that the police should have the power to search, even without probable cause, to protect themselves from weapons.<ref name=":16"/> The ''Terry'' stop operates under the assumption that although stop-and-frisk is an intrusion, the potential harm from weapons outweighs it.<ref name=":25">{{Cite journal|last1=Bandes|first1=Susan A.|last2=Pryor|first2=Marie|last3=Kerrison|first3=Erin M.|last4=Goff|first4=Phillip Atiba|date=March 2019|title=The mismeasure of Terry stops: Assessing the psychological and emotional harms of stop and frisk to individuals and communities|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/bsl.2401|journal=Behavioral Sciences & the Law|language=en|volume=37|issue=2|pages=176–194|doi=10.1002/bsl.2401|pmid=30912171|s2cid=85518215 |issn=0735-3936|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

The cases following ''Terry'' expanded the power of the police. While the original case was concerned with armed violence and firsthand observation by officers, ''Adams v. Williams'' (1972) extended the doctrine to [[drug possession]] substantiated by the secondhand hearsay of an informant.<ref>{{Cite court|litigants=Adams v. Williams|court=2d Cir.|reporter=U.S.|vol=407|opinion=143|date=1972|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/407/143/|quote=Here, the information from the informant had enough indicia of reliability to justify the officer's forcible stop of petitioner and the protective seizure of the weapon, which afforded reasonable ground for the search incident to the arrest that ensued}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Harris |first1=David A. |title=Frisking Every Suspect: The Withering of Terry |journal=UC Davis Law Review |date=1994 |volume=28 |issue=1 |url=https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/28/1/Articles/DavisVol28No1_Harris.pdf}}</ref> The ''Adams v. Williams'' case set a precedent that police are not required to directly observe suspicious behavior if their reasonable suspicion is based upon information provided by a confidential informant.<ref name=":16"/> Regarding the case, Justice Marshall stated: "Today's decision invokes the specter of a society in which innocent citizens may be stopped, searched, and arrested at the whim of police officers who have only the slightest suspicion of improper conduct."<ref name=":16"/> ''United States v. Hensley'' (1985) ruled that police officers may stop and question suspects whom they recognize from "wanted" flyers issued by other police departments.<ref>{{Cite court|litigants=United States v. Hensley|court=6th Cir.|reporter=U.S.|vol=469|opinion=221|date=1985|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/469/221/|quote=If a 'wanted flyer' has been issued on the basis of articulable facts supporting a reasonable suspicion that the person wanted has committed an offense, then reliance on that flyer justifies a stop to check identification, to pose questions, or to detain the person briefly while attempting to obtain further information}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Weiss |first1=Rachel S. |title=Defining the Contours of United States v. Hensley: Limiting the Use of Terry Stops for Completed Misdemeanors |journal=Cornell Law Review |date=2009 |volume=94 |issue=5 |url=https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3146&context=clr}}</ref> In ''[[Illinois v. Wardlow]]'' (2000), a person's unprovoked flight from [[Chicago Police Department|Chicago police officers]] in "an area known for heavy narcotics trafficking" constituted reasonable suspicion to stop him.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Bernache |first1=Damien |title=The 'High-Crime Area' Question: Requiring Verifiable and Quantifiable Evidence for Fourth Amendment Reasonable Suspicion Analysis |journal=American University Law Review |url=https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1036&context=aulr |date=2008 |volume=57 |issue=6}}</ref>

During ''Terry'' stops, police usually ask detainees to identify themselves. Several states require people to provide their names to the police upon request. In ''[[Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada]]'' (2004), these [[stop and identify statutes|stop-and-identify statutes]] were deemed constitutional.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Nederhood |first1=Robert |title=All or Nothing: The Supreme Court Answers the Question What's in a Name |journal=[[Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology]] |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7196&context=jclc |date=2005 |volume=95 |issue=3}}</ref> While the specifics of stop-and-identify statutes and ordinances vary, a significant number of states and local jurisdictions have enacted such laws.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stop and Identify Statutes in the United States |url=https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/resources/stop_identify_statutes_in_us-lg-20180201v3.pdf |website=Immigrant Legal Resource Center |access-date=21 April 2021 |date=1 February 2018}}</ref> In New York, courts have limited the effects of ''Terry'' by creating a four-level continuum of intrusion, each of which requires its own level of suspicion.<ref>{{cite web |title=Close Encounters of the Police Kind |url=https://archive.nysba.org/Sections/Criminal_Justice/Criminal_Justice_PDFs/DeBour_Report_2018.html |website=New York State Bar Association |access-date=18 June 2022 |page=1 |format=PDF|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231027201027/https://archive.nysba.org/Sections/Criminal_Justice/Criminal_Justice_PDFs/DeBour_Report_2018.html|archive-date=October 27, 2023}}</ref> This allows police officers to detain people if the officers possess an articulable and objectively credible reason.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm | title=People v Ddebour }}</ref> In ''People v. DeBour'', New York's highest court permitted the police to stop a person who simply crosses the street upon observing the police.<ref>{{cite web |author1=[[New York Court of Appeals]] |title=People v De Bour |url=https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm |website=nycourts.gov |access-date=October 27, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231027201259/https://nycourts.gov/reporter/archives/p_debour.htm |archive-date=October 27, 2023 |date=June 15, 1976}}</ref>

Lacking reasonable suspicion, police may stop a person based on a hunch, constituting a [[Stop and identify statutes#Consensual|consensual stop]]. ''[[United States v. Mendenhall]]'' found that police are not generally required to advise an individual that the stop is on a consensual basis nor that the person may leave at any time.<ref> Writing for the court in ''United States v. Mendenhall'', {{ussc|446|544|1980}} [[Potter Stewart|Justice Stewart]] stated,

{{quote|Our conclusion that no seizure occurred is not affected by the fact that the respondent was not expressly told by the agents that she was free to decline to cooperate with their inquiry, for the voluntariness of her responses does not depend upon her having been so informed.|446 U.S. at 555}}</ref> A person can typically determine whether a stop is consensual by asking, "Am I free to go?". If the officer responds in the negative or does not respond, the person is being detained under a ''Terry'' stop; otherwise, the person may leave. ''Mendenhall'' also found that a consensual stop can be converted into an unconstitutional ''Terry'' stop by circumstances such as "the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be compelled." Police who conduct an unconstitutional ''Terry'' stop can face administrative discipline and civil suits.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2016/02/consensual-encounters.aspx|title=Consensual Encounters|newspaper=Police Magazine|date=5 February 2016 |access-date=16 December 2018}}</ref>

In ''[[Pennsylvania v. Mimms]]'', two police officers issued Mimms a ticket for driving a car with an expired license plate. When they asked him to step out, they realized that he had a gun, and promptly arrested him. The court ruled in favor of the police, citing officer safety as their reason. Dissenting justices found that this furthers the expansion of ''Terry''. They feared that the ruling set a precedent that officers could ask citizens to perform actions through warrantless intrusion.<ref name=":16"/>

===Search===

A [[frisking|frisk]], also known as a pat-down, of the surface of a suspect's garments is permitted during a ''Terry'' stop but must be limited to actions necessary to discover weapons and must be based on a reasonable suspicion the individual may be armed.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Argiriou|first1=Steven|title=Terry Frisk Update|url=https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/terryfriskupdate.pdf|website=Federal Law Enforcement Training Center|access-date=13 November 2018}}</ref> However, pursuant to the plain-feel doctrine (similar to the [[plain view doctrine|plain-view doctrine]]), police may seize [[contraband]] discovered in the course of a frisk, but only if the type of contraband is immediately apparent.<ref name=samaha/>

The Supreme Court has placed very liberal requirements on what is "immediately apparent" regarding contraband. In an example provided by the [[Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers]], an officer feels a hard pack of cigarettes while frisking a suspect and inspects the pack, discovering drugs inside. The officer is legally permitted to open the pack because he has prior knowledge, based on experience, that a small switchblade or tiny gun could be hidden in such a box.<ref>{{cite report |title=Terry Frisk Update |url=https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/imported_files/training/programs/legal-division/downloads-articles-and-faqs/research-by-subject/4th-amendment/terryfriskupdate.pdf |publisher=Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers}}</ref>

Subsequent court cases have expanded the definition of what constitutes a frisk and what is considered as [[admissible evidence]]. In ''[[Michigan v. Long]]'', ''Terry'' stops were extended to searching the inside of a car passenger compartment if police have reasonable suspicion that an occupant may have access to a weapon there. In ''[[Minnesota v. Dickerson]]'', the court ruled that "immediately recognized" contraband discovered during a ''Terry'' stop is also a lawful seizure.<ref name=Gandy-2016>{{cite web |last1=Gandy |first1=Imani |title=Boom! Lawyered: Stop-and-Frisk Edition |url=https://rewire.news/ablc/2016/10/07/boom-lawyered-stop-frisk-edition/ |website=Rewire.News |access-date=13 November 2018 |date=7 October 2016}}</ref>

==== Consensual search ====
Based on the Supreme Court decision in ''[[Schneckloth v. Bustamonte]]'' (1972), a person waives Fourth Amendment protections when voluntarily [[consent search|consenting to a search]]. Police are not required to inform a person of their right to decline the search. Justice Marshall, in his dissent, wrote that it is a "curious result that one can choose to relinquish a constitutional right—the right to be free from unreasonable searches—without knowing that he has the alternative of refusing to accede to a police request."<ref>{{cite journal |last=Loewy |first=Arnold H. |date=2010 |title=Knowing 'Consent' Means 'Knowing Consent' – The Underappreciated Wisdom of Justice Marshall's Schneckloth v. Bustamonte Dissent |url=https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/2009%20Loewy.pdf |journal=Mississippi Law Journal |volume=79 |issue=1}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Burke |first=Alafair S.  |date=2016 |title=Consent Searches and Fourth Amendment Reasonableness |url=https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=flr |journal=Florida Law Review |volume=67 |issue=2}}</ref> Several cities and states require police to inform citizens of their right to deny a search.

== Traffic stops ==
{{Further|Traffic stop}}[[File:New Jersey State Police Traffic Stop.jpg|thumb|[[New Jersey State Police]] officer conducting a [[traffic stop]] on the [[New Jersey Turnpike]]]]
For practical purposes, a traffic stop is essentially the same as a ''Terry'' stop; for the duration of a stop, driver and passengers are "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The Supreme Court has held that drivers and passengers may be ordered to exit the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures. Drivers and passengers may be frisked for weapons upon reasonable suspicion they are armed and dangerous. If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment. Otherwise, lacking a warrant or the driver's consent, police may not search the vehicle, but under the [[plain view doctrine|plain-view doctrine]] may seize and use as evidence weapons or contraband that are visible from outside the vehicle.<ref name=samaha/>

As decided in ''[[Ohio v. Robinette]]'' (1996), after an officer returns the driver's identification, there is no requirement that the officer inform the driver of their freedom to leave; therefore, although the encounter has changed to a consensual encounter, questioning can continue, including a request to search the vehicle.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dery |first=George M. III |date=1998 |title='When Will This Traffic Stop End?': The United States Supreme Court's Dodge of Every Detained Motorist's Central Concern—Ohio v. Robinette |url=https://ir.law.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1411&context=lr |journal=Florida State University Law Review |volume=25 |issue=3}}</ref>

==Pretextual stops==
Pretextual stops are a subset of traffic stops deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court in ''[[Whren v. United States]]'' (1996). They occur when a police officer wishes to investigate a motorist on other suspicions, generally related to drug possession, and uses a minor traffic infringement as a pretext to stop the driver. In the case of ''Whren'', the defense used a "would-have" rule, asking whether a reasonable police officer would have made the stop without the suspicion of other criminal behavior. Some<ref>{{cite web |last1=Neath |first1=Scarlet |title=Redesigning Public Safety: Traffic Safety |url=https://policingequity.org/traffic-safety/60-cpe-white-paper-traffic-safety/file |website=Center for Policing Equity |access-date=May 17, 2023}}</ref> consider that pretextual stops can allow racial profiling to occur. There are numerous petty violations that a typical driver might commit, and the officer can be selective about whom to detain for questioning.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Harris |first=David A. |date=1997 |title=Driving While Black and All Other Traffic Offenses: The Supreme Court and Pretextual Traffic Stops |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6913&context=jclc |journal=Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |volume=87 |issue=2|pages=544–582 |doi=10.2307/1143954 |jstor=1143954 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> Sixteen states ban pretextual stops that are based solely upon racial profiling or other {{linktext|immutable|lang=en}} factors:<ref name=naacp>{{cite web |title=Born Suspect: Stop-and-Frisk Abuses & the Continued Fight to End Racial Profiling in America |url=https://www.naacp.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Born_Suspect_Report_final_web.pdf |publisher=NAACP |date=2014 }}{{Dead link|date=August 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

{{Columns-list|*Arizona
*Arkansas
*California
*Colorado
*Connecticut
*Kansas
*Maryland
*Mississippi
*Montana
*Nebraska
*New Jersey
*New Mexico
*Oklahoma
*Rhode Island
*Utah
*West Virginia}}

== Racial disparities ==
Police officers may develop schemas after continuously being exposed to certain environments, like high-crime minority neighborhoods, which can lead to their association of crime with race instead of focusing on suspicious behavior.<ref name=":56"/> Officers who have been in the police force for longer are more likely to have suspicions based on non-behavioral reasons.<ref name=":56"/> Forms of American culture that perpetuate negative stereotypes, such as black people being violent or white people committing white-collar crimes, can theoretically cause people to act on these stereotypes, even if they do not believe them, making implicit bias a possible factor in arrests.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Correll|first1=Joshua|title=The Police Officer's Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals|date=2004-12-30|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203496398-28|work=Social Cognition|pages=451–469|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0-203-49639-8|access-date=2021-04-27|last2=Park|first2=Bernadette|last3=Judd|first3=Charles M.|last4=Wittenbrink|first4=Bernd|doi=10.4324/9780203496398-28|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Some argue that Black and Hispanic people are more likely to be targeted and are more likely to be stopped than population and relative crime rates might suggest.<ref name=":32">{{Cite journal|last1=Goel|first1=Sharad|last2=Rao|first2=Justin M.|last3=Shroff|first3=Ravi|date=2016-03-01|title=Precinct or prejudice? Understanding racial disparities in New York City's stop-and-frisk policy|journal=The Annals of Applied Statistics|volume=10|issue=1|doi=10.1214/15-aoas897|issn=1932-6157|doi-access=free}}</ref>

''Terry'' stop regulations vary by area. Areas with high crime, such as public housing, might require less evidence for someone to be stopped.<ref name=":32" /> This places the inhabitants of the area at greater risk for detainment.<ref name=":32" /> In areas that are perceived to have high crimes, more police are deployed, which results in higher arrest rates, which are then used to justify more policing.<ref name=":56" /> When controlling for location-based stops, one study found that white people were more likely to have a weapon than are black or Hispanic people.<ref name=":32" /> Another study determined that the same proportion of racial groups were stopped during the day and at night, suggesting that stop decisions were not based on the physical appearance of the driver.<ref name=":32" /> However, the study was interpreted to suggest that black people are more likely to be detained for longer periods of time.<ref name=":32" /> The National Research Council states that "more research is needed on the complex interplay of race, ethnicity, and other social factors in police-citizen interactions."<ref name=":56" />

One study suggested a 27% increase in the likelihood of black people experiencing force during a stop compared to a white person, and a 28% increase in likelihood that the officer would draw their gun.<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Kramer|first1=Rory|last2=Remster|first2=Brianna|date=2018|title=Stop, Frisk, and Assault? Racial Disparities in Police Use of Force During Investigatory Stops|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lasr.12366|journal=Law & Society Review|language=en|volume=52|issue=4|pages=960–993|doi=10.1111/lasr.12366|s2cid=149764658 |issn=1540-5893|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The study also determined that even during consensual stops, blacks are 29% more likely to experience force than other racial groups.<ref name=":6" /> Young people were found more likely to experience force compared to older people.<ref name=":6" /> In New York City between 1996 and 2000, there was a disproportionate number of complaints by blacks about officers' [[use of force]].<ref name=":82"/> Governmental and nongovernmental organizations investigations have confirmed that police-perpetrated abuse has affected many people of all races.<ref name=":82"/> Another study blamed variances in types of nonverbal communication among races as a factor influencing some officers' suspicions.<ref name=":56"/>

A 2009 study theorized that police officers could use their power to enforce their masculinity.<ref name=":102">{{Cite journal|last=Cooper|first=Frank|date=2009-01-01|title="Who's the Man?": Masculinities Studies, Terry Stops, and Police Training|url=https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/facpub/1122|journal=Scholarly Works}}</ref> Because most police officers and detainees are men, officers are susceptible to the culture of honor stance and [[hypermasculinity]], in which they are more prone to physical aggression in order to protect their social standing.<ref name=":102"/>

A 2015 study concluded that immigration does not have a positive correlation with crime, but that immigrants are disproportionately stopped and arrested, leading to distrust of law enforcement.<ref name=":72">{{Cite journal|last=Torres|first=Jose|date=2015|title=Race/Ethnicity and Stop-and-Frisk: Past, Present, Future|url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/soc4.12322|journal=Sociology Compass|language=en|volume=9|issue=11|pages=931–939|doi=10.1111/soc4.12322|issn=1751-9020|url-access=subscription}}</ref> The study also argued that immigrants typically possess less awareness of how to behave when stopped by the police.<ref name=":72"/> After being stopped more often, immigrants may hold distrust towards the police.<ref name=":72"/>

== Effects ==

=== Usage of force ===
The experience of minority citizens, who are both more likely to be stopped by police and more likely to experience the use of force by the police after being stopped, has been characterized as a racial or ethnic "double jeopardy".<ref name=":04">{{Cite journal|last1=Morrow|first1=Weston J.|last2=White|first2=Michael D.|last3=Fradella|first3=Henry F.|date=2017-05-18|title=After the Stop: Exploring the Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Police Use of Force During Terry Stops|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1098611117708791|journal=Police Quarterly|volume=20|issue=4|pages=367–396|doi=10.1177/1098611117708791|s2cid=149308626|issn=1098-6111|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Acts of police force cause injury, death, civil litigation, public outrage, civil disorder, and a distrust towards the police.<ref name=":04"/>

[[Killing of Eric Garner|Eric Garner]] and NYPD, [[Killing of Freddie Gray|Freddie Gray]] and the Baltimore police, and [[Shooting of Michael Brown|Michael Brown]] and the Ferguson police are notable examples of police force at ''Terry'' stops that ended tragically.<ref name=":04"/> Although racial disparities in the frequency of ''Terry'' stops are well known, less is known about the nature, prevalence, and factors predictive of use of force during ''Terry'' stops.<ref name=":04"/>

Morrow et al. studied NYPD's SQF (stop, question, and frisk) records in 2010 to determine the frequency of force used at stops and whether the citizen's race/ethnicity was a factor in the decision to use force.<ref name=":04"/> SQF tactics were found to disproportionately target minorities, regardless of control over variables like social and economic factors, precinct crime rates, and neighborhood racial or ethnic composition. SQF tactics did not seem to actually address crime either, as only 6% of stops yielded an arrest and only 0.15% of stops yielded a gun. In 2013, 44% of young minority New Yorkers had been stopped by NYPD nine or more times.<ref name=":04"/>

Using the US Census Bureau's data from 2012, Morrow et al. analyzed racial/ethnic disparities in the use of force among NYPD.<ref name=":04"/> Force was classified as hands, suspect on ground, suspect against wall, weapon drawn, weapon pointed, baton, handcuffs, pepper spray, and other; these were then categorized as no force, physical/non-weapon force, and weapon force. They found that non-weapon force occurred in 14.1% of SQF.<ref name=":04" /> However, when this was further separated by racial categories, while for whites, only 0.9% experienced non-weapon force, 7.6% blacks and 5.0% Hispanics experienced non-weapon force, eight to nine times more likely than whites.<ref name=":04" /> There is a possibility that these results are due to implicit biases of police officers, which could be shaped by previous experiences in the workforce.<ref name=":04" />

=== Psychological and emotional harm ===
A stop and frisk can be damaging to communities.<ref name=":25"/> Kwate and Threadcraft argue that stop and frisk is a public health problem and works to "produce bodies that are harassed, stressed and resource deprived, if not altogether dead".<ref name=":112">{{Cite journal|last1=Kwate|first1=Naa Oyo A.|last2=Threadcraft|first2=Shatema|date=2017|title=Dying Fast and Dying Slow in Black Space: Stop and Frisk's Public Health Threat and a Comprehensive Necropolitics|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/article/abs/dying-fast-and-dying-slow-in-black-space/113E9238F929CC40959D3F5ABE7D7509|journal=Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race|language=en|volume=14|issue=2|pages=535–556|doi=10.1017/S1742058X17000169|s2cid=149517503|issn=1742-058X|url-access=subscription}}</ref> Stop and frisk creates an environment of fear that alters the behaviors of a community's inhabitants and limits their freedom of action.<ref name=":112"/> The police conduct pat-downs that intrude upon the privacy of the individual, and can result in escalation through physical or sexual violence. During this process, officers sometimes use profanity and discriminatory slurs. Because of this, residents often have anger, fear, or distrust towards the police.<ref name=":25"/>

For those with mental disorders and disabilities, pat-downs can be traumatic, especially for those with sensory disorders. Those who have suffered through sexual trauma, which is prevalent among men with criminal justice histories and black people in poorer urban areas, can relive their trauma through the invasive procedure, resulting in stress, depression, and anxiety.<ref name=":25"/> This practice also increases the possibility of sexual exploitation or assault, especially in communities that are more vulnerable, like black and poor sex workers and sex trafficking victims.<ref name=":25"/> Because ways of transporting drugs have evolved, some police officers utilize methods such as stripping the civilian and searching their body for drugs, which can be traumatizing for both users and nonusers of drugs.<ref name=":82"/> Civilians have also reported that police officers often wait until their quota is filled up to bring the arrested civilians back to stations. Civilians must stay in the back of the van, which often was missing seats, for hours on end and packed with 15 or 16 people, without access to the bathroom.<ref name=":82"/>

In a study conducted by Cooper et al., young men who do not use drugs stated that they feel uncomfortable when stopped by a police officer because they were afraid that "unnecessary violence or life disruption was imminent during every police stop".<ref name=":82"/> Those who have been stopped more often develop more [[allostatic load]], resulting in low self esteem and despair. When residents of a community know they are being treated both unfairly, and unfairly due to their social identity, they are more likely to anticipate stigma and rejection due to their race.<ref name=":25"/> Marginalized communities that experience recurring injustice from the police distrust them and become more cynical of them, resulting in [[legal cynicism]], which in turn results in decreased cooperation and respect toward the legal system.<ref name=":25"/> This loss of faith in the system causes depressed civic and political engagement. Community residents are less likely to call for the police to help when they believe the police are not on their side, instead turning towards other community members. This distrust towards police is passed down from generation to generation, otherwise known as [[legal socialization]], as a means of protection, forcing the community to live in perpetual fear.<ref name=":25"/>

Items that are discovered during pat-downs that are incriminating, like clean needles, condoms, and other harm reduction tools, are used less to prevent arrest; this then is a danger to public health.<ref name=":25"/>

== Solutions ==
Many police departments all over the country have adapted courtesy policing as a response to criticism of racial profiling and police violence.<ref name=":42">{{Cite journal |last1=Rios |first1=Victor M. |last2=Prieto |first2=Greg |last3=Ibarra |first3=Jonathan M. |date=February 2020 |title=Mano Suave–Mano Dura : Legitimacy Policing and Latino Stop-and-Frisk |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003122419897348 |journal=American Sociological Review |language=en |volume=85 |issue=1 |pages=58–75 |doi=10.1177/0003122419897348 |issn=0003-1224 |s2cid=213659099|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Courtesy policing is when the police build rapport with the community through respect and friendliness.<ref name=":42" /> Legitimacy policing is a method used by police officers to interact with the community, where, in order to achieve a desired outcome, police officers utilize both punitive and courtesy strategies.<ref name=":42" /> While courtesy policing is used to gain trust and collect information, the punitive approach is used whenever it appears that the stopped people did not comply, making the police more aggressive; these approaches are adapted on a shifting continuum to the actions of the people they stop. People of color are more likely to see this community policing as degrading.<ref name=":42" />

Cooper believes that in order to address hypermasculinity, which increases physical aggression in the police force, officers should be taught to not use command presence (where they use an authoritative tone of voice or even become physically violent) in situations where it is not needed.<ref name=":102"/> It should still be used when the officer is in a dangerous situation, but not when a situation does not require force. Instead of the officer punishing the harm doer, the officer should instead make it a goal to have a full understanding of the situation. Police training culture should not emphasize aggressive approaches and instead advocate for a more patient approach.<ref name=":102" /> An emphasis should be put on how to communicate with civilians who challenge their authority. Officers should also be made aware of any potential biases they may have.<ref name=":102" />

Terry was originally created to prevent imminent armed robberies. However, 90% of individuals who are stop-and-frisked in New York City were free to leave afterwards.<ref name=":32"/> This demonstrates that they were not about to do serious criminal activity, which goes against Terry's purpose of preventing serious crime. Hutchins wishes to narrow the scope of Terry, and prevent certain police encounters from happening in the first place, and proposes to limit the reach of ''Terry'' stops so that officers may not stop someone based on a possessory offense under nothing more than reasonable suspicion.<ref name=":16"/> Goel calls for the optimization of stop relating to criminal possession of a weapon (CPW). Because having a lower threshold of evidence to stop someone disproportionately affects black and Hispanic people, optimization would result in less racial disparities for ''Terry'' stops.<ref name=":32"/> Goel examines NYPD's three million stops for cases where the stop yielded an individual involved with criminal possession of a weapon. In approximately 43% of these stops, there was less than 1% of a chance that the suspect had a weapon.<ref name=":32" /> Goel found that five stop circumstances are more likely to increase the likelihood of recovering a weapon for a stop: suspicious weapon, sights and sounds of criminal activity, suspicious bulge, witness report, and ongoing investigation.<ref name=":32" />

Kwate and Threadcraft advocate for three ways to address Stop and Frisk, as a public health issue. First, they believe the health department's citywide health surveys should include Stop and Frisk encounters, so that the data can be used to investigate health outcomes of a Stop and Frisk. Second, within 24 hours, reports of traumatic stops should be received by the city. Third, a registry should be created in which communities can report police encounters.<ref name=":112"/> Torres calls for more comprehensive data in stop and frisk reports.<ref name=":72"/> Specifically, since Latinos can also be white and black, current data is not as accurate.

==Data collection==
The following states require stop-and-frisk data collection:<ref name="naacp" />

{{Columns-list|*Alabama{{efn|Require this data to be published (including Kansas){{Clarification inline|date=June 2022}}|name=publish}}
*California{{efn|name=publish}}
*Connecticut{{efn|name=publish}}
*Florida{{efn|name=publish}}
*Illinois{{efn|name=publish}}
*Louisiana{{efn|name=publish}}
*Maryland{{efn|name=publish}}
*Massachusetts{{efn|name=publish}}
*Minnesota
*Missouri
*Montana{{efn|name=publish}}
*North Carolina
*Nebraska{{efn|name=publish}}
*Nevada{{efn|name=publish}}
*Rhode Island{{efn|name=publish}}
*Texas{{efn|name=publish}}
*Washington
*West Virginia{{efn|name=publish}}}}

Using public record requests, the Stanford Open Policing project amassed 60 million state traffic stops in 20 states over the period 2011 through 2015.<ref>{{cite web |title=Stanford Open Policing project |publisher=Stanford Computational Journalism Lab |url=https://openpolicing.stanford.edu/}}</ref><ref>{{cite arXiv |last1=Pierson |first1=Emma |title=A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States |eprint=1706.05678 |date=2017 <!--|pmid=32367028--> |class=stat.AP }}</ref>

North Carolina was the first state in the country to require the release of all traffic stop data starting in 2000.<ref>{{cite web |title=North Carolina Traffic Stop Statistics: Frequently Asked Questions |url=https://www.ncdoj.gov/Crime/View-Traffic-Stop-Statistics/FAQ.aspx |publisher=North Carolina Attorney General }}{{Dead link|date=August 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Researchers have analysed 20 million traffic stops from this data finding that African Americans as a share of the population were twice as likely to be pulled over than whites and four times as likely to be searched. Hispanics were not more likely to be pulled over, but had a higher likelihood of being searched.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Baumgartner |first1=Frank R. |last2=Epp |first2=Derek A. |last3=Shoub |first3=Kelsey |title=Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race |date=2018 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1108454049}}</ref>

There is a push to release more open police data nationwide. In 2015, the White House launched the Police Data Initiative which, {{As of|2018||lc=y}}, has 130 participating police departments, some of which provide data sets on stop-and-frisk.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/05/18/launching-police-data-initiative| title=Launching the Police Data Initiative | date= May 18, 2015  | website=The White House, President Barack Obama  |author1=Smith, Megan  |author2=Austin Jr, Roy L.}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=National Police Foundation Publishes Best Practices Guide for Police Open Data |work=National Police Foundation |date=29 November 2018 |url=https://www.policefoundation.org/national-police-foundation-publishes-best-practices-guide-for-police-open-data/ |publisher=Police Foundation }}{{Dead link|date=August 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> The 130 departments cover 15% of the population.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Jackman |first1=Tom |title=Only 53 police agencies participating in national push for use of force statistics |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2016/04/26/only-53-police-agencies-participating-in-national-push-for-use-of-force-statistics/ |newspaper=Washington Post |date=April 26, 2016}}</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Consent search case law]]
* [[Stop-and-frisk in New York City]]
* [[Sus law]]
* [[Powers of the police in England and Wales#Search without arrest]]

== Notes ==
{{Notelist}}

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

== Further reading ==
* {{cite journal |last=Katz |first=Lewis R. |date=2004 |title=Terry v. Ohio at Thirty-Five: A Revisionist View |url=https://olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/katzMSLJ04.pdf |journal=Mississippi Law Journal |volume=74 |archive-date=November 14, 2018 |access-date=November 26, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181114010840/https://www.olemiss.edu/depts/ncjrl/pdf/katzMSLJ04.pdf |url-status=dead }}
* {{cite journal |last=Meares |first=Tracey L. |date=2015 |title=Programming Errors: Understanding the Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk as a Program, Not an Incident |url=https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5866&context=uclrev |journal=The University of Chicago Law Review |volume=82 |issue=1}}
* {{cite web |last1=Rubin |first1=John |title=Police Investigation: Stops, Searches, and Arrests |url=https://defendermanuals.sog.unc.edu/race/2-police-investigation-stops-searches-and-arrests |website=Indigent Defense Manuals |publisher=UNC School of Government |access-date=22 January 2019}}

== External links ==
* United States Supreme Court - [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio Terry v. Ohio] - Court Documents

{{Authority control}}

{{Racism}}

[[Category:African-American-related controversies]]
[[Category:Race-related controversies in the United States]]
[[Category:Law enforcement in the United States]]
[[Category:Law enforcement techniques]]
[[Category:Privacy law in the United States]]
[[Category:Searches and seizures]]