Per the above case what did Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1 - Supreme Court (1968) actually hold?
“We conclude that the revolver seized from Terry was properly admitted in evidence against him. At the time he seized petitioner and searched him for weapons, Officer McFadden had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioner was armed and dangerous, and it was necessary for the protection of himself and others to take swift measures to discover the true facts and neutralize the threat of harm if it materialized. The policeman carefully restricted his search to what was appropriate to the discovery of the particular items which he sought. Each case of this sort will, of course, have to be decided on its own facts. We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence against the person from whom they were taken.”
Terry was only charged and convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and nothing else. In Ohio and many other states (constitutional carry) carrying openly or concealed can no longer can be considered an unlawful act and fall within the totally of "probable cause."
A "search" and "seizure" can NOT be constitutional by Fourth Amendment standards, unless there was "probable cause" (1) to believe that a crime had been committed or (2) a crime was in the process of being committed or (3) a crime was about to be committed. Brandishing a weapon falls outside the mere carrying a weapon, in effect, being within the probable cause realm.
In other words, under Bruen the carrying a firearm cannot fall within the “probable cause inquiry” when determining the totality of the circumstances.
I see Terry being challenged down the road, and at the very least pared back.
