Which landmark case established stop-and-frisk procedures based on reasonable suspicion?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio
• B. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• C. Miranda v. Arizona
• D. Katz v. United States

Answer: (B)

The stop-and-frisk framework hinges on reasonable suspicion—a threshold lower than probable cause that allows a brief detention and a protective pat-down for weapons when an officer has articulable facts indicating the person may be involved in criminal activity and could be armed. This standard was established by Terry v. Ohio in 1968, which held that police may stop a person and frisk for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. The frisk is limited to the outer clothing to check for weapons, and the stop should be brief and purpose-driven to confirm or dispel the suspicion.

Other rulings address different Fourth Amendment issues: Mapp v. Ohio deals with the exclusionary rule for unlawfully obtained evidence; Miranda v. Arizona covers the rights safeguards during custodial interrogation; Katz v. United States expands privacy protections regarding electronic surveillance. None of these establish the stop-and-frisk authority based on reasonable suspicion.