What standard justifies a stop and frisk under Terry v. Ohio?

• A. Probable cause that a crime has occurred
• B. Reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed
• C. Preponderance of the evidence
• D. Beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer: (B)

The standard being tested is reasonable suspicion for a stop, with the allowance of a frisk if the officer also believes the person may be armed. A stop is a brief detention justified by specific, articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot—not a full-blown arrest. If during that stop the officer reasonably believes the person could be armed and dangerous, a frisk (a quick pat-down of outer clothing) is permitted to check for weapons. This balance protects the officer’s safety while imposing only a limited intrusion on the individual. Reasonable suspicion sits between a mere hunch and probable cause, enough to justify a brief seizure and possible frisk, but not enough to justify an arrest or a formal search without more evidence. Probable cause would support an arrest or a search with a warrant, while the other standards (civil or beyond reasonable doubt) do not apply to stop-and-frisk situations.