Which statement best captures the scope of the Fourth Amendment's stop-and-frisk rules?

Which statement best captures the scope of the Fourth Amendment's stop-and-frisk rules?

• A. The stop requires reasonable suspicion; the frisk requires reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous.
• B. Stops require probable cause; frisks require no suspicion.
• C. Stops require a warrant.
• D. Frisks require consent.

Answer: (A)

The key idea is how stop-and-frisk works under the Fourth Amendment: an officer may briefly stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and, if the stop is justified, may perform a limited frisk for weapons if there’s reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. This two-step framework comes from Terry v. Ohio and allows a quick, protective search in situations where danger to the officer is possible. A stop does not require probable cause or a warrant; it needs only reasonable suspicion—specific, articulable facts that suggest the person is involved in criminal activity. The frisk is a separate, more limited protective search that is permissible only if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous, and it is limited to a pat-down to detect weapons. This exactly matches the statement: the stop requires reasonable suspicion, and the frisk requires reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. The other ideas—stops requiring probable cause or warrants, or frisks requiring no suspicion or consent—do not fit how stop-and-frisk is authorized.

The key idea is how stop-and-frisk works under the Fourth Amendment: an officer may briefly stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and, if the stop is justified, may perform a limited frisk for weapons if there’s reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. This two-step framework comes from Terry v. Ohio and allows a quick, protective search in situations where danger to the officer is possible.

A stop does not require probable cause or a warrant; it needs only reasonable suspicion—specific, articulable facts that suggest the person is involved in criminal activity. The frisk is a separate, more limited protective search that is permissible only if the officer reasonably believes the person is armed and dangerous, and it is limited to a pat-down to detect weapons.

This exactly matches the statement: the stop requires reasonable suspicion, and the frisk requires reasonable belief the person is armed and dangerous. The other ideas—stops requiring probable cause or warrants, or frisks requiring no suspicion or consent—do not fit how stop-and-frisk is authorized.