Terry v. Ohio Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a police officer’s stop and frisk of a suspect based on reasonable suspicion, rather than probable cause, does not violate the Fourth Amendment, creating a new standard for brief investigatory detentions and protective pat-downs.
Legal Significance: This case established the “Terry stop” doctrine, allowing police to briefly detain and frisk individuals based on “reasonable suspicion,” a standard less demanding than probable cause, thereby creating a major exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable cause requirements.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
An experienced Cleveland police detective, Martin McFadden, observed two men, John Terry and Richard Chilton, repeatedly walking past a store, peering in the window, and conferring on a street corner. McFadden, suspecting they were “casing a job, a stick-up,” concluded that they might be armed. He approached the men, identified himself, and asked for their names. When they gave a mumbled response, McFadden grabbed Terry, spun him around, and conducted a pat-down of his outer clothing. Feeling a pistol in Terry’s overcoat, he reached inside and removed a .38-caliber revolver. He then frisked Chilton and found another weapon. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. At trial, the court denied Terry’s motion to suppress the gun as evidence, finding that while the officer lacked probable cause for an arrest, the stop and frisk was justified by a reasonable suspicion that Terry was engaged in criminal activity and posed a danger to the officer.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures bar a police officer from stopping a person for investigation and conducting a limited pat-down for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity but not probable cause for an arrest?
No. The Court held that the stop and frisk was a reasonable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor i
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures bar a police officer from stopping a person for investigation and conducting a limited pat-down for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity but not probable cause for an arrest?
Conclusion
This landmark decision established reasonable suspicion as a constitutional standard for brief Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
Where a police officer observes unusual conduct that leads him to reasonably Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint oc
Legal Analysis
The Court first established that a "stop" is a seizure and a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscin
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Establishes the constitutionality of the “stop and frisk” under the Fourth