Opinion ID: 755786
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Terry Stop was Justified at its Inception

Text: 18 Preliminarily, Swann asserts that the district court should have suppressed the fruits of Officer Martin's search because the facts surrounding the encounter were arguably insufficient to establish an articulable suspicion that would justify the seizure of Mr. Swann. To stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes, an officer need only have a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity 'may be afoot.'  United States. v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 7, 109 S.Ct. 1581, 104 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989). Where the officer has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, he may conduct a reasonable frisk of the outer clothing for weapons. Terry, 392 U.S. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868. Because a frisk, although a severe ... intrusion upon cherished personal security, id. at 24-25, 88 S.Ct. 1868, is substantially less intrusive than a full-blown search, and because of the paramount interest in officer safety and the extraordinary risks to which law enforcement officials are exposed during [investigatory] detentions, United States v. Stanfield, 109 F.3d 976, 979-80 (4th Cir.1997), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 156, 139 L.Ed.2d 101 (1997), the standard justifying a frisk is not onerous. Whether an officer has such reasonable suspicion to justify a stop-and-frisk is subject to de novo review. See United States v. Perrin, 45 F.3d 869, 871 (4th Cir.1995). 19 We think it clear beyond peradventure that Officer Martin possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion to support the stop-and-frisk of Swann and his companion. Officer Martin, investigating a crime that had just occurred, saw two suspects fitting the descriptions of those wanted for the crime. The suspects behaved nervously and in a threatening manner upon being approached and addressed. It was the officer's duty to require that the two men stop to answer a few questions, and it was manifestly reasonable to frisk them for weapons to ensure his own safety. Cf. United States v. Baker, 78 F.3d 135, 137 (4th Cir.1996) (Based on the inordinate risk of danger to law enforcement officers during traffic stops, observing a bulge that could be made by a weapon in a suspect's clothing reasonably warrants a belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous, even if the suspect was stopped only for a minor violation.). Therefore, the Terry stopand-frisk was appropriate. 20