Why Stop-and-Frisk is Legal | Terry v. Ohio

In episode 55 of Supreme Court Briefs, an undercover detective stops and frisks three men who were acting "suspiciously" outside of a jewelry store. Was that an invasion of their Fourth Amendment rights? #supremecourtbriefs #4thamendment #stopandfrisk

Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Thanks to the AP Archive for additional footage.

Check out cool primary sources here:

Other sources used:

Creative commons credits:
Xvex7
longislandwins

Cleveland, Ohio
October 31, 1963
That’s right, Halloween

Martin McFadden, a Cleveland detective with 39 years of experience, gets suspicious when he sees two men pacing back and forth in front of a jewelry store. The two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, would go back and forth, according to various reports, between 12 and 24 times. They took turns starting a block or two away, and then would routinely walk up to the jewelry store window to peek in, and return back to chat about it. Soon, a third man, named Carl Katz, approached Terry and Chilton and talked with them and then left.

McFadden had seen enough. After the three men rejoined in front of Zucker’s, a clothing store, McFadden decided to approach them. McFadden was in street clothes, but identified himself as a police officer and asked them for their names. After the men “mumbled something” in response, McFadden frisked them. Frisk, by the way, means patting someone down to search for hidden weapons or illegal stuff.

Well after McFadden frisked the men, he found a .38-caliber automatic pistol in Terry’s overcoat pocket and a .38-caliber revolver in Chilton’s pocket. Later McFadden would argue he only did a pat-down before reaching into their pockets for the guns.
At the trial, Terry and Chilton’s lawyer argued the evidence of the guns couldn’t be used in court since McFadden’s frisk of them went against the Fourth Amendment. It was an illegal search and seizure. You see, there was this law called the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule said you couldn’t use evidence if the police got it illegally.

The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court disagreed, finding Terry and Chilton guilty. They ruled that, due to both the suspicious nature of their behavior and McFadden’s concern for his own safety, the “stop-and-frisk,” as it’s now commonly known, was reasonable. Terry appealed to the Ohio District Court of Appeals, which agreed with the lower court. So he appealed again, this time to the Supreme Court of Ohio, but it dismissed the appeal saying that it involved “no constitutional question.”

By the time Terry had tried to appeal his case to the United States Supreme Court, it was 1967, a time when more and more Americans were losing their trust in the police. Especially African Americans. Oh, by the way, here is what Terry looked like. Here is what Chilton looked like. Here is what Katz looked like.

The Supreme Court did hear arguments on December 12, 1967. The big question: was the stop and frisk of Terry and the other men a violation of the Fourth Amendment?

The Court said no. On June 10, 1968, it announced it had sided with Ohio. It was 8-1. They said that the police could stop-and-frisk suspects as long as there was a “reasonable suspicion” that the suspect was actually about to commit a crime. So the search and seizure was reasonable in Terry and the others’ case since it did seem like they were gonna rob that jewelry store. After all, McFadden had 39 years of police experience, so he would know better than about anyone what an armed robbery was about to look like.

[iammrbeat]

My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!

[lorenzjudeceloso]

I've noticed that Ohio has a lot of Supreme Court Briefs Cases that are important and infamous

[_rl_]

The problem isn't in court's decision, but in the fact that term "reasonable suspicion" could be used for anything and PDs wouldn't be accountable if they did it wrong.

[ardeiwann]

6:04 As we all know, the six political sides are Left, Right, Center, Russia, Europe, and Canada

[iammrbeat]

Do you agree with the Court in this case?
Which Supreme Court case should I cover next for this series?

[beckhall]

YES. Supreme court briefs are my favorite.

[mangeurdecowan]

Thanks for continuing to make the Supreme Court Briefs series. It's great to hear about these past cases that I would otherwise probably never hear about. Your videos are a perfect balance of historical context, case summary, and outcome. Keep them coming please.

[royaldominion]

I've been enjoying your channel Lately Mr beat. Keep up the good work. Who ever wins the 2020 election will you upload a election video?

[HelloWorld-xfks]

I really like the way you revealed that Terry and Chilton were black and that Katz was white. Some say that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and this is a prefect example. As we all know, searching the two black men and not the white man as well is VERY """reasonable""" and warrants search and seizure.
I look forward to the next Supreme Court Briefs!

[EPluribusUnumYT]

Mike Bloomberg sees this vid and starts breathing Heavily...

[ganimhoward]

These may not do as well as your other videos but oh man are they important. If anyone wants to know about the evolution of our “rights” as citizens this is where to go.

[deezynar]

The Terry decision was based on the officer seeing Terry engaging in suspicious behavior.
Stopping just anyone walking down the street is not what was intended at all. In fact, stopping people for no reason is a violation of the 4th amendment.

[reginarodriguez]

I think there’s a difference between just ‘frisking’ someone who seems suspicious and pressing their head down on the hood of a car. If the police was less aggressive then they’d probably have more people defending the Stop-and-Frisk policy instead of fighting to abolish it

[longobongo]

I know you said this series doesn't get as many views as other videos, but it is one of my favourite types of video you make you do so keep everything up!

[RoccoJulian]

Mr. Beat, you are one of my favorite social studies teachers. You have helped me learn a lot over the years I have watched you. Never stop!

[ZackN]

Supreme Court Briefs are my favorite Mr. Beat videos. Thank you so much for making these.

[ender]

Just finished watching all your old Supreme Court Briefs videos and now there's a new one for me! :) Amazing series!

[dgjFOURlife]

love the added detail about the vote and reasoning behind the one vote, very important man. Thank you!

[stalkinghorse]

I think an important part of this case is the suspects suspicious behavior before the stop and frisk. If it was done today the police would need video of the behavior before they could stop and frisk, not an insurmountable requirement with today's technology.

[RemixedVoice]

My favorite series is back! Thanks Mr. Beat!