Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Terry v. Ohio

Supreme Court of the United States

December 12, 1967, Argued ; June 10, 1968, Decided

No. 67

Opinion

 [*4]   [***896]   [**1871]  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 [****8]  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  [***897]  case when I looked over they didn't look right to me at the time."

 [****9]  His interest aroused, Officer McFadden took up a post of observation in the  [**1872]  entrance to a store 300 to 400 feet  [*6]  away from the two men. "I get more purpose to watch them when I seen their movements," he testified. He saw one of the men leave the other one and walk southwest on Huron Road, past some stores. The man paused for a moment and looked in a store window, then walked on a short distance, turned around and walked back toward the corner, pausing once again to look in the same store window. He rejoined his companion at the corner, and the two conferred briefly. Then the second man went through the same series of motions, strolling down Huron Road, looking in the same window, walking on a short distance, turning back, peering in the store window again, and returning to confer with the first man at the corner. The two men repeated this ritual alternately between five and six times apiece -- in all, roughly a dozen trips. At one point, while the two were standing together on the corner, a third man approached them and engaged them briefly in conversation. This man then left the two others and walked west on Euclid Avenue. Chilton and Terry resumed [****10]  their measured pacing, peering, and conferring. After this had gone on for 10 to 12 minutes, the two men walked off together, heading west on Euclid Avenue, following the path taken earlier by the third man.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

392 U.S. 1 *; 88 S. Ct. 1868 **; 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 ***; 1968 U.S. LEXIS 1345 ****; 44 Ohio Op. 2d 383

TERRY v. OHIO

Prior History:  [****1]  CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.

Disposition: Affirmed.

CORE TERMS

arrest, weapons, frisk, probable cause, Fourth Amendment, police officer, seizure, intrusion, seized, circumstances, street, armed, cases, clothing, outer, limitations, suspicion, personal security, interrogation, encounter, questions, investigate, suspicious, searches, walked, guns, police conduct, corner, exclusionary rule, confronting

Constitutional Law, Fundamental Rights, Search & Seizure, General Overview, Scope of Protection, Criminal Law & Procedure, Expectation of Privacy, The Judiciary, Jurisdiction, Diversity Jurisdiction, Exclusionary Rule, Exclusionary Rule, Warrantless Searches, Stop & Frisk, Exigent Circumstances, Reasonable & Prudent Standard, Exigent Circumstances, Exceptions to Exclusionary Rule, Probable Cause, Search Warrants, Issuance by Neutral & Detached Magistrate, Probable Cause, Governmental Action Requirement, Good Faith, Absence of Probable Cause, Criminal Offenses, Weapons Offenses, Fruit of the Poisonous Tree, Rule Application & Interpretation, Crimes Against Persons, Assault & Battery, Simple Offenses