Detentions (Terry Stops)
This page includes a writing template for analyzing this topic and usage notes to guide its application. In general, the template is designed to serve as a starting point for your analysis. It should be adapted to fit the specific facts of your case and your professor’s preferences.
On this page:
Writing Template
Issue
I: The issue is whether the government’s detention was unreasonable.
Analysis
R: To reasonably seize a person by detention, an officer must have (1) a reasonable suspicion to investigate, (2) supported by articulable facts, and (3) the detention must be brief. If (4) the officer suspects the defendant is armed, the officer may also frisk the defendant for weapons.
1. Reasonable Suspicion
R: The officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. This suspicion must be more than a mere hunch.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, this element [is/is not] satisfied.
2. Articulable Facts
R: The reasonable suspicion must be grounded in objective and particular facts that the officer can articulate, rather than vague or generalized suspicions. These facts may come from the officer’s observations, reliable information from witnesses, or known patterns of behavior associated with criminal activity.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, this element [is/is not] satisfied.
3. Duration of the Detention
R: The detention must be brief, lasting only long enough to confirm or dispel the officer’s reasonable suspicion. The length of the detention is judged by whether it was necessary to achieve the investigative purpose.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, this element [is/is not] satisfied.
(4) Frisk for Weapons Expansion
R: If, (1) during the detention, the officer develops a reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a limited frisk of the individual for weapons. A limited frisk is defined as a pat-down search of a person’s outer clothing conducted by a law enforcement officer to determine whether the person is armed and poses a danger. If, (2) during the frisk, the officer feels an object whose contour or mass makes it immediately apparent to be contraband (such as a weapon), the officer may seize the object under the “plain feel” doctrine. However, if the object is not identifiable as a weapon or contraband, the officer cannot further search without additional justification.
A: Here, [apply rule to facts].
C: Therefore, the officer [had/did not have] reasonable suspicion Defendant was armed and dangerous, and the frisk [was/was not] properly executed.
Conclusion
C: Therefore, the government’s detention [was/was not] unreasonable.
Usage Notes
JurisJotter templates synthesize legal principles into a practical format that supports the development of well-structured, point-rich analyses in a timed exam.
The template features (1) headers identifying the overall issue, analysis, and conclusion. If the analysis begins with an umbrella rule that identifies elements, factors, or steps of the analysis, it will be followed by subheaders that signpost the analysis of each component.
The template also features (2) IRAC labels at the beginning of each paragraph. These headers and labels are included for educational purposes, offering guidance on structuring your analysis. Your usage of the headers is optional but can be helpful to readers. We advise against including the IRAC labels in submitted work.
The templates serve as a general guide for writing and should be adapted to align with (1) your specific factual circumstances and (2) your professor’s preferences, particularly if your professor provides explicit formulations of rules or analyses. For example, you may add or subtract an element or modify its language. Regardless of whether your professor provides explicit formulations, (3) this template will assist you in crafting point-rich analyses.
Please note that these templates are writing aids and not finished products. They are efficiently designed for exam essays to demonstrate conceptual understanding; thus, they are not comprehensive outlines with historical context or dicta.
Questions or comments? Reach out at [email protected].