Stop and Frisk: Arizona v. Johnson Case - Essay Example

The trial court found him guilty of possession of a weapon by a prohibited possessor and possession of marijuana. The court of appeals reversed the decision claiming the standard required in Terry v. Ohio was not met. According to the Court of Appeals: “Terry established that, in an investigatory stop based on reasonably grounded suspicion of criminal activity, the police must be positioned to act instantly if they have reasonable cause to suspect that the persons temporarily detained are armed and dangerous.

Citing Terry, the Court further held that a driver, once outside the stopped vehicle, may be patted down for weapons if the officer reasonably concludes that the driver might be armed and dangerous. The Arizona Court of Appeals recognized that. once Officer Trevizo began questioning him on a matter unrelated to the traffic stop, patdown authority ceased to exist, absent reasonable suspicion that Johnson had engaged, or was about to engage, in criminal activity.” (Arizona, n.d.)