Which scenario represents a permissible stop-and-frisk under Terry v. Ohio?

Which scenario represents a permissible stop-and-frisk under Terry v. Ohio?

• A. An officer stops a pedestrian when there is reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity and conducts a frisk for weapons.
• B. A search of a vehicle with probable cause.
• C. A warrantless search of an occupied home.
• D. A routine traffic stop with no suspicion.

Answer: (A)

Under Terry v. Ohio, police may briefly stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity, and they may conduct a quick pat-down (a frisk) to check for weapons if they also have a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous. The frisk is limited to weapons and is meant to protect the officer and others during the encounter. The described scenario fits this standard: there is reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity, and the officer performs a frisk specifically to check for weapons. This is a controlled, safety-focused intrusion, not a broad search for evidence. The other situations go beyond what Terry authorizes. A vehicle search typically requires probable cause (or a valid exception) rather than a mere stop-and-frisk. A warrantless search of an occupied home generally requires exigent circumstances, consent, or a warrant. A routine traffic stop with no suspicion is improper because there is no reasonable basis to detain the person in the first place.

Under Terry v. Ohio, police may briefly stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity, and they may conduct a quick pat-down (a frisk) to check for weapons if they also have a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous. The frisk is limited to weapons and is meant to protect the officer and others during the encounter.

The described scenario fits this standard: there is reasonable suspicion of ongoing criminal activity, and the officer performs a frisk specifically to check for weapons. This is a controlled, safety-focused intrusion, not a broad search for evidence.

The other situations go beyond what Terry authorizes. A vehicle search typically requires probable cause (or a valid exception) rather than a mere stop-and-frisk. A warrantless search of an occupied home generally requires exigent circumstances, consent, or a warrant. A routine traffic stop with no suspicion is improper because there is no reasonable basis to detain the person in the first place.