Terry v. Ohio established which rule for police stops?

Study for the California POST Requalification Test. Enhance your readiness with multiple choice questions and detailed explanations. Excel on your exam!

Multiple Choice

Terry v. Ohio established which rule for police stops?

Explanation:
Stop-and-frisk is the rule that allows a police officer to briefly stop a person and conduct a quick frisk for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. Terry v. Ohio established that such stop-and-frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, provided the stop is limited in scope and duration and the frisk is limited to a search for weapons. This is different from other doctrines: the exclusionary rule deals with whether illegally obtained evidence can be used; the plain view doctrine concerns evidence seized only if it is in plain view during a lawful observation; the Miranda rule concerns rights warnings during custodial interrogation, not stops. Therefore, the rule most associated with police stops is the stop-and-frisk rule.

Stop-and-frisk is the rule that allows a police officer to briefly stop a person and conduct a quick frisk for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. Terry v. Ohio established that such stop-and-frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, provided the stop is limited in scope and duration and the frisk is limited to a search for weapons. This is different from other doctrines: the exclusionary rule deals with whether illegally obtained evidence can be used; the plain view doctrine concerns evidence seized only if it is in plain view during a lawful observation; the Miranda rule concerns rights warnings during custodial interrogation, not stops. Therefore, the rule most associated with police stops is the stop-and-frisk rule.

Subscribe

Get the latest from Passetra

You can unsubscribe at any time. Read our privacy policy