Il testo completo di questa pagina non è ancora stato tradotto, quindi qui sotto è mostrato in inglese. Il riepilogo, le etichette e le informazioni sulla sicurezza qui sopra sono tradotti.
A 16-year-old waits for a bus on Euclid Avenue in downtown Cleveland. An officer walks up, asks what he is doing, and then says, 'Turn around, I'm going to pat you down.' That moment is governed by a case that started a few blocks away, on the corner of Huron Road and Euclid Avenue, on October 31, 1963.
What happened in Terry
Cleveland detective Martin McFadden watched two men, Terry and Richard Chilton, walk back and forth past the same store window again and again. He suspected they were planning a daylight robbery. He stopped them, patted the outside of their clothing, and found a gun on each of them.
In Terry v. Ohio, decided June 10, 1968, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an officer may briefly stop a person and pat down the outer clothing for weapons when the officer reasonably believes a crime may be happening and the person may be armed and dangerous. The Court said this is still a search under the Fourth Amendment (the part of the Constitution that protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures), so it has limits.
Two separate steps, two separate reasons
A 'stop' and a 'frisk' are different things. To stop you, the officer needs reasonable suspicion, meaning specific facts that point to a crime, not just a feeling. The Court said an officer's 'hunch' is not enough and that the officer must be able to point to 'specific and articulable facts.'
To frisk you, the officer needs a second reason: a reasonable belief that you are armed and dangerous. Being stopped does not automatically allow a pat-down.
The frisk is also limited in scope. It is a pat on the outside of your clothes to find weapons. It is not a full search of your pockets, backpack, or phone.
What an officer can take during a pat-down
In Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), the Supreme Court said that if an officer patting down outer clothing feels an object whose shape makes it immediately obvious that it is illegal, the officer may take it. In that case, though, the officer kept squeezing and sliding a small lump in a jacket pocket after he knew it was not a weapon, and the Court ruled that went beyond what Terry allows.
So the line is this: a pat-down looks for weapons. Digging, squeezing, or reaching into pockets to find something else needs a different legal reason, such as your consent or probable cause, which is a stronger level of proof than reasonable suspicion.
If it happens to you
Stay still, keep your hands where the officer can see them, and do not pull away or push back, even if you think the stop is unfair. Physical resistance can lead to a separate charge and can get someone hurt. The place to challenge a stop is later, with a lawyer or public defender.
You can say calmly, 'I do not consent to any search.' That does not stop a lawful pat-down for weapons, but it makes clear you did not agree to anything more. You can also ask, 'Am I free to leave?' Afterward, write down the time, place, officer names or badge numbers, and what was said, and tell a parent or trusted adult.
Da ricordare
- Terry v. Ohio (1968) lets police briefly stop you on reasonable suspicion, meaning specific facts, not a hunch.
- A frisk needs a second reason: a reasonable belief that you are armed and dangerous.
- A frisk is a pat of outer clothing for weapons; Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993) shows that going further is not allowed.
- Do not resist; say you do not consent to a search, and write down the details afterward.
Fonti
Questo articolo offre informazioni educative generali, non consulenza legale personalizzata. KidsKnowRights non è uno studio legale, e leggere questo articolo non crea un rapporto avvocato-cliente. Le leggi cambiano a seconda dello stato, dell'età e delle circostanze, e cambiano nel tempo. Per un consiglio su una situazione reale, parla con un avvocato abilitato o con un'organizzazione di assistenza legale gratuita.