Warning
Info
Warning
Info
Simple English definitions for legal terms
Stop and frisk
Read a random definition: employee stock option
A quick definition of Stop and frisk:
Stop and frisk is when a police officer briefly stops someone they suspect of committing a crime and pats them down to check for weapons. The officer must have a good reason to suspect the person and can only frisk them if they believe the person is armed and dangerous. This is called a Terry Stop. The Supreme Court says that a stop-and-frisk must be reasonable and not violate the Fourth Amendment. If the stop is too long or the frisk is not justified, any evidence found may not be allowed in court. However, if there is a valid arrest warrant for the person, evidence found during the stop may be allowed in court.A more thorough explanation:
A stop-and-frisk is a brief police stop of a suspect. Before stopping the suspect, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed by the suspect. If the police reasonably suspect that the suspect is armed and dangerous, the police may frisk the suspect, meaning that the police will give a quick pat-down of the suspect's outer clothing. This frisk is also called a Terry Stop, derived from the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
The Fourth Amendment requires that a stop-and-frisk must comply with the Fourth Amendment, meaning that the stop-and-frisk cannot be unreasonable. According to the Terry court, a reasonable stop-and-frisk is one "in which a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous."
For example, if a police officer sees a person walking down the street with a gun in their hand, the officer has reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk the person to ensure that they are not a danger to themselves or others.
However, if a police officer stops and frisks a person without any reasonable suspicion, the stop-and-frisk is considered unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Any evidence found during an unreasonable search is subject to the exclusionary rule and will be excluded from being introduced at trial.
For example, if a police officer stops and frisks a person without any reasonable suspicion and finds drugs in their pocket, the drugs cannot be used as evidence in court because the stop-and-frisk was unreasonable.
It is important to note that a stop-and-frisk falls under criminal law, as opposed to civil law.