Wag mo akong ma-Terry, Terry! (Validity of stop-frisk searches)
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution deems ‘inviolable’ the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures
Published in Daily Tribune on May 26, 2022
by: Danica Aurea Cartagena
One night, Alex decided to take a walk in the streets of Manila. He wore an oversized hoodie, denim pants, and dirty-white rubber shoes, with his hands inside the pockets of his oversized hoodie.
Suddenly, a police officer approached him and said, “Ano yang nasa bulsa mo?” Alex answered, “Alin?” The police officer answered, “Patingin ako.” Alex refused.
The police officer patted the outer clothing of Alex and forcibly pulled out the latter’s hands. Alex, knowledgeable of constitutional law, shouted, “Terry! Terry!” The police officer shouted, “Wag mo akong ma-Terry, Terry!”
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution deems “inviolable” the right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. Hence, without a valid warrant of arrest or search warrant, a police officer cannot search or arrest an individual. However, there are certain exceptions, one of which is the stop-and-frisk search.
Stop-and-frisk searches under the “Terry doctrine” was validated in the landmark case of Terry vs Ohio (1968), where a policeman who had reasonable suspicion that Terry and his two companions were about to rob someone, approached them and subsequently patted Terry’s outer clothing. There, he felt in his pocket a pistol. The US Supreme Court ruled that to be valid, (1) the police officer must have reasonable suspicion, in light of his or her experience, that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he/she is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous; (2) the search must only be a carefully limited search of the outer clothing; and (3) it must be conducted for the purpose of discovering weapons which might be used to assault him/her or other persons in the area.
The Terry search was developed to deter the commission of crimes. Jurisprudence emphasized that while a stop-and-frisk search was necessary for the said purpose, such should be balanced with a citizen’s right to privacy.
In People vs Sapla (2020), the Supreme Court explained that to prevent a violation of an individual’s right against unreasonable searches, a stop-and-frisk search must be based on suspicion, which, to be deemed reasonable, requires the presence of more than one suspicious circumstance that aroused the officer’s suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.
In Malacat vs Court of Appeals (1997), the Supreme Court laid the test for a reasonable stop and frisk. It held that mere suspicion will not validate a stop-and-frisk; there must exist a genuine reason, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him.
In the situation presented before us, there was no genuine reason for the police officer to stop and frisk Alex. Even assuming that the refusal of Alex to remove his hands from his pockets is suspicious, it cannot be viewed as sufficient to incite suspicion of criminal activity. The police officer’s suspicion alone is not enough to conduct a stop-and-frisk search.
The next time a police officer stops you or anyone you know, it pays to know what your constitutional rights are, such as when a stop-and-frisk search should be considered valid — a stop and frisk search may only be conducted when two or more circumstances excite reasonable suspicion on the part of the police officer; and, the ensuing search is limited only to the suspect’s outer clothing.
***
Danica Aurea Cartagena is an Associate Lawyer of the Aranas Cruz Araneta Parker & Faustino Law Offices. After graduating cum laude from Far Eastern University with a degree in BSBA major in Internal Auditing, she obtained her Juris Doctor degree from the same university. Her practice areas include taxation, criminal, corporate law and compliance.
