In the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Bernard Friedman drew a distinction between stop and frisk and search and seizure. This distinction was also recognized the U.S. Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio.
Judge Friedman wrote in his opinion:
A search is primarily for the purpose of trying to obtain evidence in connection with the commission of a crime, that the police officer may reasonably believe that a crime has been committed or might be committed.
A frisking is strictly for the protection of the officer\u27s person and his life. There was reasonable cause in this case for the officer, Detective McFadden, to approach these individuals and pat them. He approached them, and for his own protection frisked them.
In drawing this distinction between stop and frisk and search and seizure, Judge Friedman cites these cases: People v. Rivera (14 N.Y.2d 441, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 201 N.E.2d 32 (1964), cert. denied 379 U.S. 978) and People v. Martin )46 Cal.2d 106 (1956); 293 P. 2d 52) and Ker v. California (374 U.S. 23 (1963)
