(9.1)-Terry v. Ohio,392 U.S. 1 (1968)行政法学行政法学

U.S.SupremeCourt

Terryv.Ohio,392U.S.1(1968)

Terryv.Ohio

No.67

ArguedDecember12,1967

DecidedJune10,1968

392U.S.1

CERTIORARITOTHESUPREMECOURTOFOHIO

Syllabus

AClevelanddetective(McFadden),onadowntownbeatwhichhehadbeenpatrollingformanyyears,observedtwostrangers(petitionerandanotherman,Chilton)onastreetcorner.Hesawthemproceedalternatelybackandforthalonganidenticalroute,pausingtostareinthesamestorewindow,whichtheydidforatotalofabout24times.Eachcompletionoftheroutewasfollowedbyaconferencebetweenthetwoonacorner,atoneofwhichtheywerejoinedbyathirdman(Katz)wholeftswiftly.Suspectingthetwomenof"casingajob,astick-up,"theofficerfollowedthemandsawthemrejointhethirdmanacoupleofblocksawayinfrontofastore.Theofficerapproachedthethree,identifiedhimselfasapoliceman,andaskedtheirnames.Themen"mumbledsomething,"whereuponMcFaddenspunpetitioneraround,patteddownhisoutsideclothing,andfoundinhisovercoatpocket,butwasunabletoremove,apistol.Theofficerorderedthethreeintothestore.Heremovedpetitioner'sovercoat,tookoutarevolver,andorderedthethreetofacethewallwiththeirhandsraised.HepatteddowntheouterclothingofChiltonandKatzandseizedarevolverfromChilton'soutsideovercoatpocket.HedidnotputhishandsundertheoutergarmentsofKatz(sincehediscoverednothinginhispat-downwhichmighthavebeenaweapon),orunderpetitioner'sorChilton'soutergarmentsuntilhefelttheguns.Thethreeweretakentothepolicestation.PetitionerandChiltonwerechargedwithcarrying

Page392U.S.2

concealedweapons.Thedefensemovedtosuppresstheweapons.Thoughthetrialcourtrejectedtheprosecutiontheorythatthegunshadbeenseizedduringasearchincidenttoalawfularrest,thecourtdeniedthemotiontosuppressandadmittedtheweaponsintoevidenceonthegroundthattheofficerhadcausetobelievethatpetitionerandChiltonwereactingsuspiciously,thattheirinterrogationwaswarranted,andthattheofficer,forhisownprotection,hadtherighttopatdowntheirouterclothinghavingreasonablecausetobelievethattheymightbearmed.Thecourtdistinguishedbetweenaninvestigatory"stop"andanarrest,andbetweena"frisk"oftheouterclothingforweaponsandafull-blownsearchforevidenceofcrime.PetitionerandChiltonwerefoundguilty,anintermediateappellatecourtaffirmed,andtheStateSupremeCourtdismissedtheappealonthegroundthat"nosubstantialconstitutionalquestion"wasinvolved.

Held:

1.TheFourthAmendmentrightagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,madeapplicabletotheStatesbytheFourteenthAmendment,"protectspeople,notplaces,"andthereforeappliesasmuchtothecitizenonthestreetsaswellasathomeorelsewhere.Pp.

392U.S.8

-9.

2.Theissueinthiscaseisnottheabstractproprietyofthepoliceconduct,buttheadmissibilityagainstpetitioneroftheevidenceuncoveredbythesearchandseizure.P.

392U.S.12

.

3.Theexclusionaryrulecannotproperlybeinvokedtoexcludetheproductsoflegitimateandrestrainedpoliceinvestigativetechniques,andthisCourt'sapprovalofsuchtechniquesshouldnotdiscourageremediesotherthantheexclusionaryruletocurtailpoliceabusesforwhichthatisnotaneffectivesanction.Pp.

392U.S.13-15.

4.TheFourthAmendmentappliesto"stopandfrisk"proceduressuchasthosefollowedhere.Pp.

392U.S.16

-20.

(a)Wheneverapoliceofficeraccostsanindividualandrestrainshisfreedomtowalkaway,hehas"seized"thatpersonwithinthemeaningoftheFourthAmendment.P.

392U.S.16

.

(b)Acarefulexplorationoftheoutersurfacesofaperson'sclothinginanattempttofindweaponsisa"search"underthatAmendment.P.

392U.S.16

.

5.Whereareasonablyprudentofficeriswarrantedinthecircumstancesofagivencaseinbelievingthathissafetyorthatofothersisendangered,hemaymakeareasonablesearchforweaponsofthepersonbelievedbyhimtobearmedanddangerous

Page392U.S.3

regardlessofwhetherhehasprobablecausetoarrestthatindividualforcrimeortheabsolutecertaintythattheindividualisarmed.Pp.

392U.S.20

-27.

(a)Thoughthepolicemust,wheneverpracticable,secureawarranttomakeasearchandseizure,thatprocedurecannotbefollowedwhereswiftactionbaseduponon-the-spotobservationsoftheofficeronthebeatisrequired.P.

392U.S.20

.

(b)Thereasonablenessofanyparticularsearchandseizuremustbeassessedinlightoftheparticularcircumstancesagainstthestandardofwhetheramanofreasonablecautioniswarrantedinbelievingthattheactiontakenwasappropriate.Pp.

392U.S.21

-22.

(c)Theofficerherewasperformingalegitimatefunctionofinvestigatingsuspiciousconductwhenhedecidedtoapproachpetitionerandhiscompanions.P.

392U.S.22

.

(d)Anofficerjustifiedinbelievingthatanindividualwhosesuspiciousbehaviorheisinvestigatingatcloserangeisarmedmay,toneutralizethethreatofphysicalharm,takenecessarymeasurestodeterminewhetherthatpersoniscarryingaweapon.P.

392U.S.24

.

(e)Asearchforweaponsintheabsenceofprobablecausetoarrestmustbestrictlycircumscribedbytheexigenciesofthesituation.Pp.

392U.S.25

-26.

(f)Anofficermaymakeanintrusionshortofarrestwherehehasreasonableapprehensionofdangerbeforebeingpossessedofinformationjustifyingarrest.Pp.

392U.S.26

-27.

6.Theofficer'sprotectiveseizureofpetitionerandhiscompanionsandthelimitedsearchwhichhemadewerereasonable,bothattheirinceptionandasconducted.Pp.

392U.S.27

-30.

(a)Theactionsofpetitionerandhiscompanionswereconsistentwiththeofficer'shypothesisthattheywerecontemplatingadaylightrobberyandwerearmed.P.

392U.S.28

.

(b)Theofficer'ssearchwasconfinedtowhatwasminimallynecessarytodeterminewhetherthemenwerearmed,andtheintrusion,whichwasmadeforthesolepurposeofprotectinghimselfandothersnearby,wasconfinedtoascertainingthepresenceofweapons.Pp.

392U.S.29

-30.

7.Therevolverseizedfrompetitionerwasproperlyadmittedintoevidenceagainsthim,sincethesearchwhichledtoitsseizurewasreasonableundertheFourthAmendment.Pp.

392U.S.30

-31.

Affirmed.

Page392U.S.4

MR.CHIEFJUSTICEWARRENdeliveredtheopinionoftheCourt.

ThiscasepresentsseriousquestionsconcerningtheroleoftheFourthAmendmentintheconfrontationonthestreetbetweenthecitizenandthepolicemaninvestigatingsuspiciouscircumstances.

PetitionerTerrywasconvictedofcarryingaconcealedweaponandsentencedtothestatutorilyprescribedtermofonetothreeyearsinthepenitentiary.[

Footnote1

]Following

Page392U.S.5

thedenialofapretrialmotiontosuppress,theprosecutionintroducedinevidencetworevolversandanumberofbulletsseizedfromTerryandacodefendant,RichardChilton,[

Footnote2

]byClevelandPoliceDetectiveMartinMcFadden.Atthehearingonthemotiontosuppressthisevidence,OfficerMcFaddentestifiedthat,whilehewaspatrollinginplainclothesindowntownClevelandatapproximately2:30intheafternoonofOctober31,1963,hisattentionwasattractedbytwomen,ChiltonandTerry,standingonthecornerofHuronRoadandEuclidAvenue.Hehadneverseenthetwomenbefore,andhewasunabletosaypreciselywhatfirstdrewhiseyetothem.However,hetestifiedthathehadbeenapolicemanfor39yearsandadetectivefor35,andthathehadbeenassignedtopatrolthisvicinityofdowntownClevelandforshopliftersandpickpocketsfor30years.Heexplainedthathehaddevelopedroutinehabitsofobservationovertheyears,andthathewould"standandwatchpeopleorwalkandwatchpeopleatmanyintervalsoftheday."Headded:"Now,inthiscase,whenIlookedover,theydidn'tlookrighttomeatthetime."

Hisinterestaroused,OfficerMcFaddentookupapostofobservationintheentrancetoastore300to400feet

Page392U.S.6

awayfromthetwomen."IgetmorepurposetowatchthemwhenIseentheirmovements,"hetestified.HesawoneofthemenleavetheotheroneandwalksouthwestonHuronRoad,pastsomestores.Themanpausedforamomentandlookedinastorewindow,thenwalkedonashortdistance,turnedaroundandwalkedbacktowardthecorner,pausingonceagaintolookinthesamestorewindow.Herejoinedhiscompanionatthecorner,andthetwoconferredbriefly.Thenthesecondmanwentthroughthesameseriesofmotions,strollingdownHuronRoad,lookinginthesamewindow,walkingonashortdistance,turningback,peeringinthestorewindowagain,andreturningtoconferwiththefirstmanatthecorner.Thetwomenrepeatedthisritualalternatelybetweenfiveandsixtimesapiece--inall,roughlyadozentrips.Atonepoint,whilethetwowerestandingtogetheronthecorner,athirdmanapproachedthemandengagedthembrieflyinconversation.ThismanthenleftthetwoothersandwalkedwestonEuclidAvenue.ChiltonandTerryresumedtheirmeasuredpacing,peering,andconferring.Afterthishadgoneonfor10to12minutes,thetwomenwalkedofftogether,headingwestonEuclidAvenue,followingthepathtakenearlierbythethirdman.

Bythistime,OfficerMcFaddenhadbecomethoroughlysuspicious.Hetestifiedthat,afterobservingtheirelaboratelycasualandoft-repeatedreconnaissanceofthestorewindowonHuronRoad,hesuspectedthetwomenof"casingajob,astick-up,"andthatheconsideredithisdutyasapoliceofficertoinvestigatefurther.Headdedthathefeared"theymayhaveagun."Thus,OfficerMcFaddenfollowedChiltonandTerryandsawthemstopinfrontofZucker'sstoretotalktothesamemanwhohadconferredwiththemearlieronthestreetcorner.Decidingthatthesituationwasripefordirectaction,OfficerMcFaddenapproachedthethreemen,identified

Page392U.S.7

himselfasapoliceofficerandaskedfortheirnames.Atthispoint,hisknowledgewasconfinedtowhathehadobserved.Hewasnotacquaintedwithanyofthethreemenbynameorbysight,andhehadreceivednoinformationconcerningthemfromanyothersource.Whenthemen"mumbledsomething"inresponsetohisinquiries,OfficerMcFaddengrabbedpetitionerTerry,spunhimaroundsothattheywerefacingtheothertwo,withTerrybetweenMcFaddenandtheothers,andpatteddowntheoutsideofhisclothing.IntheleftbreastpocketofTerry'sovercoat,OfficerMcFaddenfeltapistol.Hereachedinsidetheovercoatpocket,butwasunabletoremovethegun.Atthispoint,keepingTerrybetweenhimselfandtheothers,theofficerorderedallthreementoenterZucker'sstore.Astheywentin,heremovedTerry'sovercoatcompletely,removeda.38caliberrevolverfromthepocketandorderedallthreementofacethewallwiththeirhandsraised.OfficerMcFaddenproceededtopatdowntheouterclothingofChiltonandthethirdman,Katz.HediscoveredanotherrevolverintheouterpocketofChilton'sovercoat,butnoweaponswerefoundonKatz.Theofficertestifiedthatheonlypattedthemendowntoseewhethertheyhadweapons,andthathedidnotputhishandsbeneaththeoutergarmentsofeitherTerryorChiltonuntilhefelttheirguns.Sofarasappearsfromtherecord,heneverplacedhishandsbeneathKatz'outergarments.OfficerMcFaddenseizedChilton'sgun,askedtheproprietorofthestoretocallapolicewagon,andtookallthreementothestation,whereChiltonandTerrywereformallychargedwithcarryingconcealedweapons.

Onthemotiontosuppresstheguns,theprosecutiontookthepositionthattheyhadbeenseizedfollowingasearchincidenttoalawfularrest.Thetrialcourtrejectedthistheory,statingthatit"wouldbestretchingthefactsbeyondreasonablecomprehension"tofindthatOfficer

Page392U.S.8

McFaddenhadhadprobablecausetoarrestthemenbeforehepattedthemdownforweapons.However,thecourtdeniedthedefendants'motiononthegroundthatOfficerMcFadden,onthebasisofhisexperience,

"hadreasonablecausetobelieve...thatthedefendantswereconductingthemselvessuspiciously,andsomeinterrogationshouldbemadeoftheiraction."

Purelyforhisownprotection,thecourtheld,theofficerhadtherighttopatdowntheouterclothingofthesemen,whohehadreasonablecausetobelievemightbearmed.Thecourtdistinguishedbetweenaninvestigatory"stop"andanarrest,andbetweena"frisk"oftheouterclothingforweaponsandafull-blownsearchforevidenceofcrime.Thefrisk,itheld,wasessentialtotheproperperformanceoftheofficer'sinvestigatoryduties,for,withoutit,"theanswertothepoliceofficermaybeabullet,andaloadedpistoldiscoveredduringthefriskisadmissible."

Afterthecourtdeniedtheirmotiontosuppress,ChiltonandTerrywaivedjurytrialandpleadednotguilty.Thecourtadjudgedthemguilty,andtheCourtofAppealsfortheEighthJudicialDistrict,CuyahogaCounty,affirmed.

Statev.Terry,

5OhioApp.2d122,214N.E.2d114(1966).TheSupremeCourtofOhiodismissedtheirappealonthegroundthatno"substantialconstitutionalquestion"wasinvolved.Wegrantedcertiorari,387U.S.929(1967),todeterminewhethertheadmissionoftherevolversinevidenceviolatedpetitioner'srightsundertheFourthAmendment,madeapplicabletotheStatesbytheFourteenth.

Mappv.Ohio,

367U.S.643

(1961).Weaffirmtheconviction.

I

TheFourthAmendmentprovidesthat"therightofthepeopletobesecureintheirpersons,houses,papers,andeffects,againstunreasonablesearchesandseizures,shallnotbeviolated...."Thisinestimablerightof

Page392U.S.9

personalsecuritybelongsasmuchtothecitizenonthestreetsofourcitiesastothehomeownerclosetedinhisstudytodisposeofhissecretaffairs.ForasthisCourthasalwaysrecognized,

"Norightisheldmoresacred,orismorecarefullyguarded,bythecommonlawthantherightofeveryindividualtothepossessionandcontrolofhisownperson,freefromallrestraintorinterferenceofothers,unlessbyclearandunquestionableauthorityoflaw."

UnionPac.R.Co.v.Botsford,

141U.S.250

,

141U.S.251

(1891).Wehaverecentlyheldthat"theFourthAmendmentprotectspeople,notplaces,"

Katzv.UnitedStates,

389U.S.347

,

389U.S.351

(1967),andwhereveranindividualmayharborareasonable"expectationofprivacy,"

id.

at

389U.S.361

(MR.JUSTICEHARLAN,concurring),heisentitledtobefreefromunreasonablegovernmentalintrusion.Ofcourse,thespecificcontentandincidentsofthisrightmustbeshapedbythecontextinwhichitisasserted.For"whattheConstitutionforbidsisnotallsearchesandseizures,butunreasonablesearchesandseizures."

Elkinsv.UnitedStates,

364U.S.206

,

364U.S.222

(1960).UnquestionablypetitionerwasentitledtotheprotectionoftheFourthAmendmentashewalkeddownthestreetinCleveland.

Beckv.Ohio,

379U.S.89

(1964);

Riosv.UnitedStates,

364U.S.253

(1960);

Henryv.UnitedStates,

361U.S.98

(1959);

UnitedStatesv.DiRe,

332U.S.581

(1948);

Carrollv.UnitedStates,

267U.S.132

(1925).Thequestioniswhether,inallthecircumstancesofthison-the-streetencounter,hisrighttopersonalsecuritywasviolatedbyanunreasonablesearchandseizure.

Wewouldbelessthancandidifwedidnotacknowledgethatthisquestionthruststotheforedifficultandtroublesomeissuesregardingasensitiveareaofpoliceactivity--issueswhichhaveneverbeforebeensquarely

Page392U.S.10

presentedtothisCourt.Reflectiveofthetensionsinvolvedarethepracticalandconstitutionalargumentspressedwithgreatvigoronbothsidesofthepublicdebateoverthepowerofthepoliceto"stopandfrisk"--asitissometimeseuphemisticallytermed--suspiciouspersons.

Ontheonehand,itisfrequentlyarguedthat,indealingwiththerapidlyunfoldingandoftendangeroussituationsoncitystreets,thepoliceareinneedofanescalatingsetofflexibleresponses,graduatedinrelationtotheamountofinformationtheypossess.Forthispurpose,itisurgedthatdistinctionsshouldbemadebetweena"stop"andan"arrest"(ora"seizure"ofaperson),andbetweena"frisk"anda"search."[

Footnote3

]Thus,itisargued,thepoliceshouldbeallowedto"stop"apersonanddetainhimbrieflyforquestioninguponsuspicionthathemaybeconnectedwithcriminalactivity.Uponsuspicionthatthepersonmaybearmed,thepoliceshouldhavethepowerto"frisk"himforweapons.Ifthe"stop"andthe"frisk"giverisetoprobablecausetobelievethatthesuspecthascommittedacrime,thenthepoliceshouldbeempoweredtomakeaformal"arrest,"andafullincident"search"oftheperson.Thisschemeisjustifiedinpartuponthenotionthata"stop"anda"frisk"amounttoamere"minorinconvenienceandpettyindignity,"[

Footnote4

]whichcanproperlybeimposeduponthe

Page392U.S.11

citizenintheinterestofeffectivelawenforcementonthebasisofapoliceofficer'ssuspicion.[

Footnote5

]

Ontheotherside,theargumentismadethattheauthorityofthepolicemustbestrictlycircumscribedbythelawofarrestandsearchasithasdevelopedtodateinthetraditionaljurisprudenceoftheFourthAmendment.[

Footnote6

]Itiscontendedwithsomeforcethatthereisnot--andcannotbe--avarietyofpoliceactivitywhichdoesnotdependsolelyuponthevoluntarycooperationofthecitizen,andyetwhichstopsshortofanarrestbaseduponprobablecausetomakesuchanarrest.TheheartoftheFourthAmendment,theargumentruns,isasevererequirementofspecificjustificationforanyintrusionuponprotectedpersonalsecurity,coupledwithahighlydevelopedsystemofjudicialcontrolstoenforceupontheagentsoftheStatethecommandsoftheConstitution.Acquiescencebythecourtsinthecompulsioninherent

Page392U.S.12

inthefieldinterrogationpracticesatissuehere,itisurged,wouldconstituteanabdicationofjudicialcontrolover,andindeedanencouragementof,substantialinterferencewithlibertyandpersonalsecuritybypoliceofficerswhosejudgmentisnecessarilycoloredbytheirprimaryinvolvementin"theoftencompetitiveenterpriseofferretingoutcrime."

Johnsonv.UnitedStates,

333U.S.10

,

333U.S.14

(1948).This,itisargued,canonlyservetoexacerbatepolice-communitytensionsinthecrowdedcentersofourNation'scities.[

Footnote7

]

Inthiscontext,weapproachtheissuesinthiscasemindfulofthelimitationsofthejudicialfunctionincontrollingthemyriaddailysituationsinwhichpolicemenandcitizensconfronteachotheronthestreet.TheStatehascharacterizedtheissuehereas

"therightofapoliceofficer...tomakeanon-the-streetstop,interrogateandpatdownforweapons(knowninstreetvernacularas'stopandfrisk').[

Footnote8

]"

Butthisisonlypartlyaccurate.Fortheissueisnottheabstractproprietyofthepoliceconduct,buttheadmissibilityagainstpetitioneroftheevidenceuncoveredbythesearchandseizure.Eversinceitsinception,theruleexcludingevidenceseizedinviolationoftheFourthAmendmenthasbeenrecognizedasaprincipalmodeofdiscouraginglawlesspoliceconduct.

SeeWeeksv.UnitedStates,

232U.S.383

,

232U.S.391

-393(1914).Thus,itsmajorthrustisadeterrentone,

seeLinkletterv.Walker,

381U.S.618

,

381U.S.629

-635(1965),andexperiencehastaughtthatitistheonlyeffectivedeterrenttopolicemisconductinthecriminalcontext,andthat,withoutit,theconstitutionalguaranteeagainstunreasonablesearchesandseizureswouldbeamere"formofwords."

Mappv.Ohio,

367U.S.643

,

367U.S.655

(1961).Therulealsoservesanothervitalfunction--"theimperativeofjudicialintegrity."

Elkins

Page392U.S.13

v.UnitedStates,

364U.S.206

,

364U.S.222

(1960).CourtswhichsitunderourConstitutioncannotandwillnotbemadepartytolawlessinvasionsoftheconstitutionalrightsofcitizensbypermittingunhinderedgovernmentaluseofthefruitsofsuchinvasions.Thus,inoursystem,evidentiaryrulingsprovidethecontextinwhichthejudicialprocessofinclusionandexclusionapprovessomeconductascomportingwithconstitutionalguaranteesanddisapprovesotheractionsbystateagents.Arulingadmittingevidenceinacriminaltrial,werecognize,hasthenecessaryeffectoflegitimizingtheconductwhichproducedtheevidence,whileanapplicationoftheexclusionaryrulewithholdstheconstitutionalimprimatur.

Theexclusionaryrulehasitslimitations,however,asatoolofjudicialcontrol.Itcannotproperlybeinvokedtoexcludetheproductsoflegitimatepoliceinvestigativetechniquesonthegroundthatmuchconductwhichiscloselysimilarinvolvesunwarrantedintrusionsuponconstitutionalprotections.Moreover,insomecontexts,theruleisineffectiveasadeterrent.Streetencountersbetweencitizensandpoliceofficersareincrediblyrichindiversity.Theyrangefromwhollyfriendlyexchangesofpleasantriesormutuallyusefulinformationtohostileconfrontationsofarmedmeninvolvingarrests,orinjuries,orlossoflife.Moreover,hostileconfrontationsarenotallofapiece.Someofthembegininafriendlyenoughmanner,onlytotakeadifferentturnupontheinjectionofsomeunexpectedelementintotheconversation.Encountersareinitiatedbythepoliceforawidevarietyofpurposes,someofwhicharewhollyunrelatedtoadesiretoprosecuteforcrime.[

Footnote9

]Doubtlesssome

Page392U.S.14

police"fieldinterrogation"conductviolatestheFourthAmendment.ButasternrefusalbythisCourttocondonesuchactivitydoesnotnecessarilyrenderitresponsivetotheexclusionaryrule.Regardlessofhoweffectivetherulemaybewhereobtainingconvictionsisanimportantobjectiveofthepolice,[

Footnote10

]itispowerlesstodeterinvasionsofconstitutionallyguaranteedrightswherethepoliceeitherhavenointerestinprosecutingorarewillingtoforgosuccessfulprosecutionintheinterestofservingsomeothergoal.

Properadjudicationofcasesinwhichtheexclusionaryruleisinvokeddemandsaconstantawarenessoftheselimitations.Thewholesaleharassmentbycertainelementsofthepolicecommunity,ofwhichminoritygroups,particularlyNegroes,frequentlycomplain,[

Footnote11

]willnotbe

Page392U.S.15

stoppedbytheexclusionofanyevidencefromanycriminaltrial.Yetarigidandunthinkingapplicationoftheexclusionaryrule,infutileprotestagainstpracticeswhichitcanneverbeusedeffectivelytocontrol,mayexactahightollinhumaninjuryandfrustrationofeffortstopreventcrime.Nojudicialopinioncancomprehendtheproteanvarietyofthestreetencounter,andwecanonlyjudgethefactsofthecasebeforeus.Nothingwesaytodayistobetakenasindicatingapprovalofpoliceconductoutsidethelegitimateinvestigativesphere.Underourdecision,courtsstillretaintheirtraditionalresponsibilitytoguardagainstpoliceconductwhichisoverbearingorharassing,orwhichtrenchesuponpersonalsecuritywithouttheobjectiveevidentiaryjustificationwhichtheConstitutionrequires.Whensuchconductisidentified,itmustbecondemnedbythejudiciary,anditsfruitsmustbeexcludedfromevidenceincriminaltrials.And,ofcourse,ourapprovaloflegitimateandrestrainedinvestigativeconductundertakenonthebasisofamplefactualjustificationshouldinnowaydiscouragetheemploymentofotherremediesthantheexclusionaryruletocurtailabusesforwhichthatsanctionmayproveinappropriate.

Havingthusroughlysketchedtheperimetersoftheconstitutionaldebateoverthelimitsonpoliceinvestigativeconductingeneralandthebackgroundagainstwhichthiscasepresentsitself,weturnourattentiontothequitenarrowquestionposedbythefactsbeforeus:whetheritisalwaysunreasonableforapolicemantoseizeapersonandsubjecthimtoalimitedsearchforweaponsunlessthereisprobablecauseforanarrest.

Page392U.S.16

Giventhenarrownessofthisquestion,wehavenooccasiontocanvassindetailtheconstitutionallimitationsuponthescopeofapoliceman'spowerwhenheconfrontsacitizenwithoutprobablecausetoarresthim.

II

OurfirsttaskistoestablishatwhatpointinthisencountertheFourthAmendmentbecomesrelevant.Thatis,wemustdecidewhetherandwhenOfficerMcFadden"seized"Terry,andwhetherandwhenheconducteda"search."Thereissomesuggestionintheuseofsuchtermsas"stop"and"frisk"thatsuchpoliceconductisoutsidethepurviewoftheFourthAmendmentbecauseneitheractionrisestothelevelofa"search"or"seizure"withinthemeaningoftheConstitution.[

Footnote12

]Weemphaticallyrejectthisnotion.ItisquiteplainthattheFourthAmendmentgoverns"seizures"ofthepersonwhichdonoteventuateinatriptothestationhouseandprosecutionforcrime--"arrests"intraditionalterminology.Itmustberecognizedthat,wheneverapoliceofficeraccostsanindividualandrestrainshisfreedomtowalkaway,hehas"seized"thatperson.AnditisnothinglessthansheertortureoftheEnglishlanguagetosuggestthatacarefulexplorationoftheoutersurfacesofaperson'sclothingalloverhisorherbodyinanattempttofindweaponsisnota"search."Moreover,itissimplyfantastictourgethatsuchaprocedure

Page392U.S.17

performedinpublicbyapolicemanwhilethecitizenstandshelpless,perhapsfacingawallwithhishandsraised,isa"pettyindignity."[

Footnote13

]Itisaseriousintrusionuponthesanctityoftheperson,whichmayinflictgreatindignityandarousestrongresentment,anditisnottobeundertakenlightly.[

Footnote14

]

Thedangerinthelogicwhichproceedsupondistinctionsbetweena"stop"andan"arrest,"or"seizure"oftheperson,andbetweena"frisk"anda"search,"istwofold.Itseekstoisolatefromconstitutionalscrutinytheinitialstagesofthecontactbetweenthepolicemanandthecitizen.And,bysuggestingarigidall-or-nothingmodelofjustificationandregulationundertheAmendment,itobscurestheutilityoflimitationsuponthescope,aswellasthein