Experimental. Doctrines is a new Annlex feature, starting with four areas: Self-incrimination, Brady, Terry and Miranda. Each page collects what courts have said about a leading case, quoted from the opinions that cite it. Annlex Chat uses these collections to help find relevant cases; what a case holds still comes from its opinion. We'd like to hear what's useful, missing or wrong: Send feedback
Reasonable, Articulable Suspicion for Stops and Frisks
Leading case
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
How courts have described it
holding that an officer may conduct a brief, investigatory stop when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot
Juan Antonio Moreno v. George N. Turner, 572 F. App'x 852 (11th Cir. 2014)
holding that officers may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, conduct a brief investigatory stop when they have a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot
United States v. Paulino Juarez, 454 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2006)
holding that an officer can stop an individual if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is underfoot
United States v. Marquez, 127 F. App'x 570 (3d Cir. 2005)
holding that reasonable suspicion requires “specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion” of a warrantless search
United States v. Manny Baker, A/K/A Henry Hurtt Manny Baker, 221 F.3d 438 (3d Cir. 2000)
ruling that the stop and frisk of a citizen supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion that the target was armed and dangerous was valid under the Fourth Amendment
Grider v. Abramson, 180 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 1999)
holding that a person may be stopped and frisked by a police officer for investigative purposes so long as the officer is acting pursuant to a reasonable, articulable suspicion
United States v. Pedro Jolio Prandy-Binett, 995 F.2d 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1993)
concluding that a series of lawful acts, while seemly innocent in isolation, can warrant investigation when taken together
State v. Otto, 726 S.E.2d 824 (N.C. 2012)
ruling that the officer “must be able to point to particular facts from which he reason ably inferred that the individual was armed and dangerous”
State v. Arthur, 691 A.2d 808 (N.J. 1997)
holding that police stops of limited duration that are reasonably related in seope to the justification for their initiation are legal
Crawford v. State, 669 N.E.2d 141 (Ind. 1996)
holding that personally observed criminal activity creates articulable facts that give rise to reasonable suspicion
Robert Lee Lieblong v. State (Tex. App. 2007)
holding that certain police stops of limited duration that are reasonably related in scope to the justification for their initiation are legal
Washington v. State, 740 N.E.2d 1241 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000)
Related doctrines
- Anonymous tip corroborated by police observation as basis for reasonable suspicion
- Informant's tip as reasonable suspicion for Terry stop and protective frisk
- Protective sweep of a vehicle's passenger compartment (vehicle frisk)
- Terry frisk scope — pat-down prerequisite to pocket intrusion
- Unprovoked Flight in a High-Crime Area as Reasonable Suspicion
About this page
The quotations above are from court opinions that cite the leading case, in each court's own words. The heading is a short label Annlex generated from those quotations. It has not been reviewed by a lawyer and is not legal advice.