# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Activism: particular judicial decision, in which a judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate legislative or executive actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Chief Justice
Earl Warren (farthest left)

Associate Justices
(read from left to right)
Hugo Black
William O. Douglas
John M. Harlan II
William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart
Byron White
Abe Fortas
Thurgood Marshall

# data[].attributes.body
8-to-1 decision, that the search by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry

# data[].attributes.body
Majority Opinion by Earl Warren was an 8-1 decision. "The Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry. Attempting to focus narrowly on the facts of this particular case, the Court found that the officer acted on more than a "hunch" and that "a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing [Terry] was armed and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior." The Court found that the searches undertaken were limited in scope and designed to protect the officer's safety incident to the investigation"

# data[].attributes.body
Concurring opinions by Justice Hugo Black, Justice John M. Harlan, and Justice Byron White
Justice Black's concurrence was a one sentence opinion indicating his concurrence in the judgment and in the court's opinion "except where the opinion quotes from and relies upon this Court's opinion in Katz v. United States and the concurring opinion in Warden v. Hayden." Justice Harlan wrote a separate concurrence arguing for a more pronounced rule regarding the circumstances under which McFadden's search was upheld and which would guide police in the future. Justice White wrote to acknowledge his own view that a brief detention for the purposes of interrogation was merited under the Fourth Amendment. In his words, "if the investigative stop is sustainable at all, constitutional rights are not necessarily violated if pertinent questions are asked and the person is restrained briefly in the process."

# data[].attributes.body
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/392/1/#tab-opinion-1947459

# data[].attributes.body
Dissenting opinions by Justice William O. Douglas was the only justice to author a dissent in this case. Justice Douglas felt that the Fourth Amendment did not allow for searches and seizures of any form absent a showing of probable cause

# data[].attributes.body
The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Respondent's (Ohio) Arguments
It is the duty of police officers to prevent crime and investigate anything suspicious

# data[].attributes.headline
Questions the Supreme Court was attempting to answer

# data[].attributes.subject
Questions the Supreme Court was attempting to answer

# data[].attributes.body
Q: Was the Fourteenth Amendment violated in Terry v Ohio

A: "A police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person 'may be armed and presently dangerous.'"