Abstract
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects one’s rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also states that no warrants shall be issued without probable cause. Probable cause can be defined as a person of reasonable caution who believes that a crime has been committed and the person accused has committed that crime. Modern law has afforded police officers an incentive to respect this amendment, known as the “stop and frisk” act. The Stop and Frisk law allows police officers to stop someone and do a quick search of their outer clothing for weapons: if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to take place and the person stopped is armed or dangerous. The reasonable suspicion must be based with specific expressed facts and not on just an officer’s intuition or guess. The Stop and Frisk law balances crime control, protects an individual’s right, and prevents from unreasonable searches. This law is further implemented and proven in the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio where it was ruled that the search performed was in fact reasonable under the constitution and the fourth amendment.

Introduction
The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be seized” (Lehman 2005). This amendment can be broken into 2 distinct parts: the reasonableness clause and the warrant clause, dictating that without proper reason or a warrant, which is imposed by a judicial officer, that an extensive search is unlawful.
The 4th Amendment and its Boundaries
In the beginning, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted the established Fourth Amendment approach,