The Fourth Amendment is supposed to be one of the clearest protections in our Constitution:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”
Sounds straightforward, right? Unfortunately, over the years, the courts have carved out so many exceptions that the rule itself barely resembles what the Founders wrote. One of the biggest turning points came in a 1968 Supreme Court case called Terry v. Ohio.
In this video, Frank Hartman breaks down the landmark Supreme Court case, explaining how it changed the rules for police stops and why it still matters today.
The Case That Changed the Rules
Here’s what happened: A police officer in Ohio saw two men walking back and forth in front of a store more than twenty times, meeting with a third man, and acting suspiciously. The officer stopped them, patted one down, and felt what he thought was a gun. Sure enough, it was a revolver.
Terry and the others argued that the search violated their Fourth Amendment rights — the officer didn’t have a warrant or probable cause. Up until then, probable cause was the clear standard.
But the Supreme Court didn’t see it that way. Instead, they created a new, lower standard: reasonable suspicion. If an officer can point to specific facts that suggest a crime “may be afoot,” and that the person might be armed or dangerous, a stop-and-frisk is allowed.
This became known as a Terry stop — and it dramatically expanded police powers.
Why It Matters
At first glance, this might sound reasonable. Police need to protect themselves, and waiting for probable cause could put them in danger. But here’s the problem: “reasonable suspicion” is vague. It’s a gray area that gives law enforcement broad discretion, and it has often led to profiling and searches based on little more than a hunch.
Over time, Terry stops were extended beyond sidewalks to vehicles, and the exceptions to the Fourth Amendment kept growing. What started as a clear protection against government intrusion has been chipped away piece by piece.
The Immigration Connection
This isn’t just about a decades-old case. Today, Terry v. Ohio plays out in immigration enforcement across the country. Border Patrol and ICE agents often rely on reasonable suspicion to stop vehicles, question individuals, and conduct searches — sometimes within 100 miles of the U.S. border.
Critics point out that this can open the door to racial and ethnic profiling. Unlike criminal cases, immigration courts don’t always apply the exclusionary rule in the same way, which means evidence obtained in questionable stops can still be used against someone.
In other words, the same weakening of Fourth Amendment protections that started with Terry now affects people in one of the most hotly debated areas of law today: immigration.
The Bottom Line
Your Fourth Amendment rights were written to be clear. But over time, exceptions have become the rule, and Terry v. Ohio is one of the cases that opened the door.
If you have questions, give injury attorney Frank Hartman a call at (843) 300-7600 or visit thehartmanlawfirm.com.