Terry vs. Ohio case law?

Answer 1

Actually, two different standards came out of the Terry case, though they are often confused.

The first rule is the Terry Stop. It says basically that a police officer may temporarily detail (stop) a person if there is a reasonable suspicion (less the probable cause) based on specifically articulable facts that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. The stop may continue for a reasonable amount of time, for the purposes of identifying the individual and determining if there is criminal activity ongoing or imminent.

The second rule is the Terry Frisk, which exists independently of the Terry Stop. Under this rule, a police officer may do a pat-down of the outer layers of clothing, IF there is reasonable suspicion (see above) that the subject is armed and presently dangerous. The police officer may then extract and inspect anything that to plain feel appears to be a weapon or that is obviously contraband.

The limits of the plain feel doctrine, whether under Terry Frisk or otherwise, are that the police office must rely upon their immediate sensory impressions, without significant manipulation or palpation. In other words, they can't squeeze, shift, move or otherwise significantly alter the position of shape of the suspected weapon or contraband without actual probable cause.

Answer 2

Terry-1 Ohio-3

Answer 3

It's called a Terry stop, it allows a police officer who is investigating a possible crime or infraction to pat down the subject for weapons without an arrest warrant or probable cause that the person is carrying a weapon for the police officer safety