Whether the Court should overrule the frisk holding of Terry v. Ohio, which allows police officers to search people absent probable cause to arrest

QUESTION PRESENTED In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Court authorized police officers to “stop and frisk” Americans even when there is no probable cause to arrest them for a crime. Specifically, the Court held that police officers may conduct an investigatory stop based on reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. The Court further held that, during such a stop, police officers may physically feel a person’s body in a search for weapons based on reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Writing twenty-five years later, Justice Scalia observed that “the ‘stop’ portion of the Terry ‘stop-and-frisk’ holding accords with the common law,” but he was “unaware” of any historical “precedent for a physical search of a person thus temporarily detained for questioning.” Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 381 (1993) (Scalia, J., concurring). He found “no clear support at common law for physically searching [a] suspect” absent probable cause to arrest, and he “doubtled]” that “the fiercely proud men who adopted our Fourth Amendment would have allowed themselves to be subjected, on mere suspicion of being armed and dangerous, to such indignity.” Id. The “Terry opinion,” he opined, represented an school of jurisprudence.” Jd. at 382. The question presented is: Whether the Court should overrule the frisk holding of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), which allows police officers to search people absent probable cause to arrest. i