Stop and Frisk:
Petitioner sought review of his conviction for carrying a concealed weapon, contending that the weapon seized from him was obtained through an illegal search, under U.S. Const. amend. IV, and that the trial court improperly denied his motion to suppress. On certiorari the court affirmed petitioner's conviction. The court ruled that despite the fact that the arresting police officer lacked probable cause to arrest petitioner at the time he made the "stop and frisk" warrantless intrusion upon petitioner that produced the weapon at issue, the search satisfied the conditions of U.S. Const. amend. IV: the officer had a reasonable suspicion, based upon his experience, that petitioner and his companions were about to commit a daytime robbery, and his belief that petitioner was presently armed, dangerous, and posed a threat to him and to others justified both the officer's "stop" of petitioner and the "frisk," or pat-down, of petitioner's overcoat. Furthermore, the court ruled that the search of the outer clothing of petitioner and his companions was properly limited in time and scope in order for him to determine the presence of weapons and to neutralize the danger posed. The court affirmed a judgment that affirmed petitioner's conviction for carrying a concealed weapon because the "stop and frisk" tactics used by the police in the search of petitioner's person and the seizure of the weapon produced from the search were reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, as the arresting officer reasonably concluded that petitioner was armed and was about to engage in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
The case names are links to the cases in Google Scholar which is a free source. Clicking on the case name will take you directly to the case in the current window or another option is right clicking and choosing to open in a new tab or window.
