Reasonable Suspicion case law is associated with which case?

Reasonable Suspicion case law is associated with which case?

• A. Katz v. United States
• B. Terry v. Ohio
• C. Mapp v. Ohio
• D. Miranda v. Arizona

Answer: (B)

Reasonable suspicion is the standard that lets an officer briefly stop and detain someone if they have a plausible belief that a crime may be afoot, and it can justify a quick frisk if there’s a concern the person is armed. This rule was established in Terry v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court approved a police stop and limited frisk based on observed suspicious behavior. The decision makes clear that such stops don’t require probable cause, only reasonable suspicion supported by specific facts and rational inferences, and that the detention must be brief and narrowly tailored to the investigation. The other cases cover different Fourth Amendment issues—privacy expectations in Katz, the exclusionary rule in Mapp, and warnings during custodial interrogation in Miranda—so Terry v. Ohio is the one most directly tied to reasonable suspicion and stop-and-frisk practice.

Reasonable suspicion is the standard that lets an officer briefly stop and detain someone if they have a plausible belief that a crime may be afoot, and it can justify a quick frisk if there’s a concern the person is armed. This rule was established in Terry v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court approved a police stop and limited frisk based on observed suspicious behavior. The decision makes clear that such stops don’t require probable cause, only reasonable suspicion supported by specific facts and rational inferences, and that the detention must be brief and narrowly tailored to the investigation. The other cases cover different Fourth Amendment issues—privacy expectations in Katz, the exclusionary rule in Mapp, and warnings during custodial interrogation in Miranda—so Terry v. Ohio is the one most directly tied to reasonable suspicion and stop-and-frisk practice.