Question: Which court case occurred first, Reynolds v. United States, or Terry v. Ohio?
Context: The stop-question-and-frisk program, or stop-and-frisk, in New York City, is a New York City Police Department practice of temporarily detaining, questioning, and at times searching civilians on the street for weapons and other contraband.  This is what is known in other places in the United States as the "Terry" stop.  The rules for stop, question, and frisk are found in the state's criminal procedure law section 140.50, and are based on the decision of the US Supreme Court in the case of "Terry v. Ohio". Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that unlike in the election of the United States Senate, in the election of "any" chamber of a state legislature the electoral districts must be roughly equal in population (thus negating the traditional function of a State Senate, which was to allow rural counties to counter balance large towns and cities).  The case was brought on behalf of voters in Alabama by M.O. Sims, a taxpayer in Birmingham, Alabama, but affected both northern and southern states that had similarly failed to reapportion their legislatures in keeping with changes in state population after its application in five companion cases in Colorado, New York, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that statutes requiring suspects to disclose their names during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment "if" the statute first required reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal involvement.  Under the rubric of "Terry v. Ohio", 392 U.S. 1 (1968) , the minimal intrusion on a suspect's privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to disclose his or her name. George Reynolds (January 1, 1842 – August 9, 1909) was a general authority of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), a longtime secretary to the First Presidency of the LDS Church, and a party to the 1878 United States Supreme Court case "Reynolds v. United States", the first freedom of religion case to issue from that court. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.)  145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment.  "Reynolds" was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Impartial Jury and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment. Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that extended "Terry v. Ohio", 392 U.S. 1 (1968) to allow searches of car compartments during a stop with "reasonable suspicion".  The case also clarified and narrowed the extent of adequate and independent state ground, allowing U.S. Supreme Court review of state supreme court decisions unless they explicitly appealed to state laws. During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.  In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.  Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887). Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks 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." Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) , is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography.  In so doing, the Court extended the holding of "New York v. Ferber", 458 U.S. 747 (1982) , which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished "Stanley v. Georgia", 394 U.S. 557 (1969) , which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes.  The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case.  However, because it was unclear whether the State had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action."  Specifically, it struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.  In the process, "Whitney v. California" (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Abrams v. United States" (1919), "Gitlow v. New York" (1925), and "Dennis v. United States" (1951).
Answer: Reynolds v. United States