Terry Stops in Washington

In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court held that a person could be stopped ("seized") and frisked when the police officer has reason to believe (based on "specific and articulable facts") that his safety or the safety of others is in danger. Of course, the rule has been interpreted and shaped over the years in federal cases.

What's the story here in Washington, where our constitution has stronger privacy protections than the U.S. constitution's? Jaime Drozd Allen gives us an overview of the caselaw in Washington Limitations on Investigatory Stops, Bar Bull., June 2006.

[Note: the URL for this article after the next issue comes out will be: http://www.kcba.org/scriptcontent/KCBA/barbulletin/0606/article12.cfm.]

Filed in: 4th-amendment, Terry-v-Ohio, Washington-constitution, Allen