The stop and frisk doctrine is primarily associated with which case?

• A. Lemon v. Kurtzman
• B. Terry v. Ohio
• C. Katz v. United States
• D. Brown v. Board of Education

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is that a police officer can briefly stop a person and perform a pat-down search for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. This principle comes from Terry v. Ohio (1968). In that decision, the Supreme Court ruled that, to protect themselves and others, officers may interrupt a person and detain them momentarily if they have a reasonable belief that the person is or may be involved in criminal activity, and they may conduct a cautious frisk of the outer clothing to check for weapons if they also have reasonable grounds to believe the person is armed and dangerous. The stop must be limited in scope and duration and is not a full arrest; the frisk should only be for weapons and only as far as necessary to determine whether the person is armed. If the officer lacks adequate suspicion, the detention and any search would be unlawful.

Other listed cases address different constitutional questions: Lemon v. Kurtzman deals with the Establishment Clause and school funding, Katz v. United States concerns privacy expectations and electronic surveillance, and Brown v. Board of Education addresses desegregation and equal protection.