Which Supreme Court case established the stop-and-frisk concept based on reasonable suspicion?

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

Answer: (A)

The idea being tested is that police may briefly stop a person and conduct a limited frisk when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and involved in criminal activity. Terry v. Ohio established this stop-and-frisk authority, allowing a quick pat-down of outer clothing to check for weapons if the officer can articulate specific facts that justify the suspicion. The frisk is narrowly tailored to protect the officer’s safety and is not a full search, reflecting a balance between safety and Fourth Amendment rights. Other listed cases address different protections: Mapp v. Ohio concerns the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence; Katz v. United States reinforces a right to privacy; Miranda v. Arizona governs rights during custodial interrogation.