The paper aims to examine possible consequences generated by the Appeal in Habeas Corpus 158.580, decision of the Superior Court of Justice that considered illegal stop and frisk based only on reasonable suspicion. The research has as its starting point an event on stop and frisk in which the speaker, an audit judge from the Military Justice, makes several criticisms of the position adopted by the Superior Court of Justice, as well as presents positions contrary to the decision offered by other actors. From the elements presented at the event, we sought to explore the impacts of the decision on other dispute arenas. Within the scope of the Legislative Power, all the proposals that had stop and frisk as their object were researched. Regarding the Judiciary, jurisprudential research was carried out to observe how many decisions mentioned the RHC 158.580, as well as the results of the judgments. At the end of the work, in addition to criticisms presented by the media, it was possible to note the resistance from state courts of justice in following the position adopted by the Superior Court of Justice, as well as the creation of bills contrary to the decision, prepared by parliamentarians, notably defenders of the Military Police.