What standard allows a stop-and-frisk under Terry v. Ohio?

What standard allows a stop-and-frisk under Terry v. Ohio?

• A. Stop requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity for the stop; frisk requires reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous.
• B. Stop requires probable cause; frisk requires no suspicion.
• C. Stop and frisk require a warrant.
• D. Stop can occur without any suspicion.

Answer: (A)

The core idea is Terry v. Ohio’s two-step standard for stops and searches. A brief stop is allowed when the police have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. If, during that stop, they have a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous, they may perform a limited frisk (a pat-down) of the outer clothing to check for weapons. This frisk is narrowly tailored to police safety and is not a full search. So the correct approach matches the idea that a stop rests on reasonable suspicion, and a frisk rests on a reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. The other options rely on probable cause, require a warrant, or allow stops without any suspicion, which is contrary to the Terry framework.

The core idea is Terry v. Ohio’s two-step standard for stops and searches. A brief stop is allowed when the police have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. If, during that stop, they have a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous, they may perform a limited frisk (a pat-down) of the outer clothing to check for weapons. This frisk is narrowly tailored to police safety and is not a full search.

So the correct approach matches the idea that a stop rests on reasonable suspicion, and a frisk rests on a reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. The other options rely on probable cause, require a warrant, or allow stops without any suspicion, which is contrary to the Terry framework.