13.3: Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Terry v. Ohio is the Supreme Court Case that provides for police officers to use their training, experience, knowledge, skill, and observation to intercede on behalf of the public into criminal conduct. None the less it is a court sanctioned form of profiling, specifically criminal profiling that as contended early on in this discussion is the basis of other forms of profiling, both positive and negative. In brief an experienced Cleveland police officer (detective) observed conduct of three men that rose to the level of casing a store in preparation to commit a robbery. The police officer acting on reasonable suspicion removed the trio from an automobile and patted them down. The pat down revealed what appeared to be weapons on two of the culprits and resulted in a search that confirmed the officer’s suspicions. The court held that in these circumstances an over the clothes pat down to provide safety for the officer is sufficient and does not rise to the level of a seizure but rather a stop and frisk is not a search (White, 2007).

The preceding is an example of descriptive common sense police work that orchestrated profiling at differing levels. In recent years Racial Profiling is on highways and streets solely based on race which is a form of police misconduct. However an officer acting on observed conduct that raises the suspicions of the police that criminal activity may be afoot is criminal profiling and occurs hundreds if not thousands a time daily across this country. If not for profiling what would constitute a reason for a stop? How much police work would be done? It is in this manner that criminal thinking is apparent in behaviorism or mannerisms that create suspicions. Further criminal thinking is important in all fashions of profiling however the type and manner of Terry Stops is critical to day to day operations.

Since Terry, the court rendered rulings regarding stops based on race, ethnic origin or minority status. In 1975, U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce was decided. The facts of the case relate that Felix Humberto Brignoni-Ponce was traveling in his vehicle and was stopped by border patrol agents because he appeared to be Mexican (Oyez.org, 1974). The questioning by agents and other passengers revealed an illegal status of the occupants. The court ruled that the information gleaned from the interviews was inadmissible due to lack of probable cause by agents in the initial stop. The actions of the agents was a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However in subsequent matters the court ruled to the contrary. The U.S. Supreme Court determined in 1993 that disparity in conviction rates is not necessarily unconstitutional unless data demonstrates that defendants of another race similarly situated are disparately impacted (U.S. v. Armstrong, 1993). In another case, Whren v United States (1996), police stopped a truck for failing to use a turn signal and upon approach of the vehicle police observed Whren in possession of crack cocaine. The court sustained the prosecution finding that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment, regardless of the pretext of the officers. An observable traffic infraction provided license and privilege for police to act.

Having stated the purpose of this article it is essential to provide a description of criminal profiling as detailed in current research and then the brief discussion of Terry Stops criminal profiling. According to Hatch-Maillette, Scalora, Huss & Baumgartner (2001):

Individuals who demonstrate heavy involvement with the legal system are an undeniably important population to consider in terms of economic, social, and ethical issues. To the extent that knowledge of these people can be amassed, researchers and clinicians can begin to address the financial and societal burdens experienced by those who are indirectly or directly affected by our criminal justice system. One way in which our understanding can increase is by systematically examining the thought content of criminal offenders in hopes of detecting patterns in specific categories of cognitions that are indigenous to the type of crime committed (p.115).