In which case is stop-and-frisk most closely associated, and what standard must be met to justify a stop?

In which case is stop-and-frisk most closely associated, and what standard must be met to justify a stop?

• A. Terry v. Ohio; reasonable suspicion
• B. Terry v. Ohio; probable cause
• C. Mapp v. Ohio; probable cause
• D. Mapp v. Ohio; reasonable suspicion

Answer: (A)

The concept being tested is the legal standard for stop-and-frisk and the case that established it. It ties to Terry v. Ohio, which allows a police officer to stop a person briefly and frisk for weapons if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. Reasonable suspicion is a threshold above a mere hunch but below probable cause, based on specific, articulable facts and the totality of the circumstances. This justifies a temporary stop and a limited frisk, not a full arrest or search. In contrast, Mapp v. Ohio deals with the exclusionary rule about illegally obtained evidence, and the higher standard of probable cause is required for arrests or broader searches, not for a brief stop.

The concept being tested is the legal standard for stop-and-frisk and the case that established it. It ties to Terry v. Ohio, which allows a police officer to stop a person briefly and frisk for weapons if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. Reasonable suspicion is a threshold above a mere hunch but below probable cause, based on specific, articulable facts and the totality of the circumstances. This justifies a temporary stop and a limited frisk, not a full arrest or search. In contrast, Mapp v. Ohio deals with the exclusionary rule about illegally obtained evidence, and the higher standard of probable cause is required for arrests or broader searches, not for a brief stop.