Which case established the standard of 'reasonable suspicion' justifying a stop and frisk?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
• B. Terry v. Ohio (1968)
• C. Adams v. Williams (1972)
• D. United States v. Arvizu (1987)

Answer: (B)

The standard being tested is the reasonable-suspicion rule for a stop and frisk. In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Court held that a police officer may briefly stop a person if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. If the officer also believes the person may be armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a limited search by patting down the outer clothing to check for weapons. This creates a permissible, short detention and a safety check without requiring a full-blown probable-cause arrest or a warrant. The key is that the suspicion must be grounded in specific, articulable facts and evaluated from an objective perspective of reasonableness.

Mapp v. Ohio deals with the exclusionary rule and the admissibility of evidence, not the stop-and-frisk standard. Adams v. Williams is a later case applying the Terry framework to specific circumstances, not establishing it. United States v. Arvizu clarifies how to assess reasonable suspicion using the totality of the circumstances, but it does not originate the standard itself.