Terry v. Ohio
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Most reviewed opinions applied Terry's stop-and-frisk rules and their stated limits, discussed other decisions' history, or rejected arguments that did not become the court's holding. One panel opinion that would have declined to extend Terry to warrantless GPS installation was vacated on rehearing.
37,643 later cases cite Terry v. Ohio; 1,407 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Terry v. Ohio?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Limited
-
The Utah Supreme Court declined to extend Terry to a frisk of items officers brought from elsewhere and gave to a detainee for reasons unrelated to the investigation.
State v. Peterson · Supreme Court of Utah · filed
Expressing no opinion on whether the police must place a suspect’s possessions out of reach instead of performing a frisk, we decline to extend the Terry doctrine to permit searches of items the police themselves retrieved from other areas to place in a suspect’s possession for non-investigatory reasons.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal held that a school campus patdown need not rest solely on a belief that the person was armed and dangerous.
People v. Jose Y. · California Court of Appeal · filed
The Attorney General acknowledges the rule set forth in Terry, but urges that a less stringent rule should apply to a patdown search which takes place on school grounds. ... However, we do not agree with minor that a patdown conducted on a person who appears to have no legitimate business on campus may be justified only by a belief that the person is armed and dangerous.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
A federal district court declined to extend Terry's brief stop rationale to month-long GPS tracking of a vehicle.
United States v. Ortiz · E.D. Pa. · filed
The government’s argument that GPS tracking can be justified based on a Terry rationale is unpersuasive. GPS installation and monitoring — involving a trespass to property and tracking of a vehicle’s whereabouts indiscriminately for over a month — is simultaneously more intrusive than a Terry stop-and-frisk and less justified by a need to dispel suspicion about “rapidly unfolding and often dangerous situations on city streets.”
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that Terry does not authorize officers to enter a home on reasonable suspicion alone.
State v. Bertrand · Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District II · filed
The State cites to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 22 (1968), for the proposition that officers are allowed “to perform brief investigations with less than probable [cause] to determine if a person has committed a crime.” Terry does not authorize an officer to enter a private home.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
In a nonprecedential order, the Illinois Appellate Court held that a stop was invalid because the officer had followed the person before developing reasonable suspicion, even though the later observation would otherwise justify a Terry stop.
People v. Gaytan · Illinois Appellate Court, First District · filed
While this would be a justifiable Terry stop if this were Lieutenant Bragassi’s initial observation when he first saw defendant and the woman walking, we cannot find that to be the case where it appears that he followed defendant and his companion in the hopes of catching some criminal activity.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The California Court of Appeal held that Terry did not authorize officers to order a person out of his home without probable cause and a warrant.
People v. Perez · California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three · filed
We find this approach compelling and reach a similar conclusion here. The Terry exception did not permit the officers to order Perez out of the residence without both probable cause and a warrant.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Terry v. Ohio and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace