Which case is commonly associated with stop and frisk policy?

• A. Miranda v. Arizona
• B. Terry v. Ohio
• C. Graham v. Connor
• D. Mapp v. Ohio

Answer: (B)

Stop-and-frisk is about allowing a police officer to briefly detain someone and then, if there’s reasonable suspicion the person is armed, to conduct a quick pat-down for weapons. The key ruling here is that such actions can be justified without full-blown probable cause, as long as the suspicion is specific and articulable and the frisk is limited to checking for weapons. This balance aims to protect the officer and the public in potentially dangerous situations while keeping intrusions restrained.

The landmark ruling that established this doctrine is a 1968 decision, which holds that when an officer has reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, a temporary stop is permissible, and a frisk for weapons is allowed if there’s reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. Note that the frisk is strictly for weapons and does not authorize a broad search for evidence of a crime.

This topic differs from other cases: one set of rulings deals with warnings during interrogation, another with how evidence obtained in searches is treated in court, and another with the reasonableness of force used by officers. So the case tied most closely to stop-and-frisk policy is the Terry v. Ohio decision.