When “Stop and Frisk” Isn’t One Thing: A Lesson from Kraft Heinz

This morning’s news that Kraft Heinz is splitting into two companies caught my attention. One company will manage sauces, spreads, and shelf-stable meals (think Heinz ketchup, Kraft Mac & Cheese, Philadelphia cream cheese). The other will handle food designed for away-from-home consumption (Oscar Mayer, Kraft Singles, Lunchables).

Why the split? Because lumping everything under one umbrella wasn’t working. Each line of business needed its own focus, strategy, and analysis.

That’s not a bad analogy for how law students and bar examinees should think about stop and frisk. (And yes, this is how my mind works—always thinking about the bar exam, even when reading the business section.)

Source: www.kraftheinzcompany.com/

The Common Mistake: Treating Stop and Frisk as a Single Concept

Many students (and lawyers, too) talk about “stop and frisk” like it’s a single action with a single analysis. It isn’t. Like Kraft Heinz, it’s actually two separate things that must be analyzed in sequence.

• The Stop (a “Terry stop”): This is an investigatory detention. Police may briefly detain a person if they have an articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person is engaged in, or has been involved in, criminal activity. This rule comes from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), which is why stops of this kind are often called Terry stops. For automobile stops, remember that either reasonable suspicion or probable cause of a traffic violation is enough, and it doesn’t matter if the stop is pretextual—an officer’s subjective motive is irrelevant so long as the objective standard is met.

  
  

• The Frisk: This is a limited search. Police may pat down a person’s outer clothing only if they have a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous. The frisk isn't a general search for evidence. Its scope is strictly limited to locating weapons unless contraband is immediately apparent under the “plain feel” doctrine.

Both steps are distinct. A lawful Terry stop doesn't automatically authorize a frisk. Each requires its own justification.

Breaking It Down: The Stop (Terry Stop)

Think of the stop as the shelf-stable division. It’s the foundation. It justifies police presence and contact. Without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the stop itself is invalid, no matter what follows.

For example:

• An officer sees someone pacing nervously outside a closed store late at night. That can amount to reasonable suspicion of attempted burglary. A Terry stop is valid.

  
  

• But what if the officer simply doesn’t like the way the person is dressed? That’s not reasonable suspicion, in which case the stop is invalid.

Breaking It Down: The Frisk

Now think of the frisk as the away-from-home division. It’s more specialized, more targeted. To frisk, the officer must reasonably believe the person is armed.

For example:

• During the valid store-stop above, the officer sees a bulge that looks like a weapon in the suspect’s jacket pocket. That justifies a frisk.

  
  

• But if the officer has no reason to think the suspect is armed, a frisk would exceed constitutional limits.

Even during a frisk, scope matters. It's limited to a pat down of outer clothing. Officers can only reach inside if the “plain feel” of an object makes it immediately apparent as a weapon or contraband.

Why It Matters on the Bar Exam

Just like Kraft Heinz shareholders want to know the performance of each separate company, professors and bar graders want to see you separate the stop analysis from the frisk analysis. Don’t just write “the stop and frisk was valid.”

Instead, structure your answer like this:

• Stop (Terry Stop): Was there articulable and reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (or probable cause for a traffic stop), and does the analysis recognize that pretext does not invalidate an otherwise lawful stop?

  
  

• Frisk: If so, did the officer also have a reasonable belief that the person was armed, and was the frisk limited in scope to a patdown for weapons?

This two-step approach shows precision in your analysis, ties back to the exclusionary rule if either step was invalid, and avoids leaving points on the table.

---

The Kraft Heinz split reminds us: Sometimes what looks like one thing is really two. In bar prep and in practice, treat stop and frisk as distinct, just as we distinguish between a Terry stop and a frisk. Do that, and you’ll keep your analysis sharp and your professors and examiners satisfied.