× Thanks for reading! Log in to continue. Enjoy more articles by logging in or creating a free account. No credit card required. Log in Sign up {{featured_button_text}}

Stop-and-frisk has proved a highly successful, constitutionally legal method of reducing violent crime. It could significantly reduce shootings in Gary, Chicago and other major cities as it did when Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of stop-and-frisk in 1968 in the case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, stating that stop-and-frisk did not violate the U.S. Constitution's 4th Amendment right against search and seizure.

The 8-1 Supreme Court decision upholding stop-and-frisk was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Only Justice William O. Douglas dissented.

In stop-and-frisk, a police officer who is suspicious of an individual detains the person and runs his or her hands lightly over the suspect's outer garments to determine if the person is carrying a concealed weapon.

This type of limited search occurs when police confront a suspicious person in an effort to prevent a crime from taking place. The police frisk (pat down) the person for weapons and question the person.