Which case is associated with the stop-and-frisk doctrine under reasonable suspicion?

Which case is associated with the stop-and-frisk doctrine under reasonable suspicion?

• A. Graham v. Connor
• B. Terry v. Ohio
• C. Tennessee v. Garner
• D. Berkemer v. McCarty

Answer: (B)

The concept being tested is the legal authority for a stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion. The landmark ruling that creates this framework is Terry v. Ohio. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that a police officer may briefly stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and may perform a limited frisk (a pat-down) for weapons if they also have a reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. The key is that this is a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, permitting only a short detention and a protective search for weapons, not a full-blown search. This is the best choice because Terry v. Ohio is specifically about establishing and validating the stop-and-frisk practice under a reasonable-suspicion standard. The other cases address different issues: Graham v. Connor deals with the reasonableness of police force used during encounters; Tennessee v. Garner addresses the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect; Berkemer v. McCarty concerns roadside traffic stops and whether a stopped driver must be advised of rights and the custodial nature of that stop.

The concept being tested is the legal authority for a stop-and-frisk based on reasonable suspicion. The landmark ruling that creates this framework is Terry v. Ohio. In that decision, the Supreme Court held that a police officer may briefly stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and may perform a limited frisk (a pat-down) for weapons if they also have a reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. The key is that this is a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment, permitting only a short detention and a protective search for weapons, not a full-blown search.

This is the best choice because Terry v. Ohio is specifically about establishing and validating the stop-and-frisk practice under a reasonable-suspicion standard. The other cases address different issues: Graham v. Connor deals with the reasonableness of police force used during encounters; Tennessee v. Garner addresses the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect; Berkemer v. McCarty concerns roadside traffic stops and whether a stopped driver must be advised of rights and the custodial nature of that stop.