Answer :
Final answer:
In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court set the standard of 'reasonable suspicion' for stop and frisk situations, which is lower than the threshold of 'probable cause' required for warrant issuance or arrests. Option a is correct.
Explanation:
The legal term probable cause is the standard by which law enforcement officials have grounds to make an arrest, obtain a warrant, or conduct a personal or property search.
More specifically, according to the seminal case of Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court held that police may stop and frisk a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and they may frisk the person for weapons if they also have a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.
This is a less stringent standard than probable cause, which is required for obtaining a warrant or making an arrest.
Answering the student's question directly, the correct term that Terry vs. Ohio uses in stop and frisk situations is reasonable suspicion, which is notably a lower standard than probable cause and does not equate to the higher thresholds like 'beyond a reasonable doubt' or 'clear and convincing evidence,' nor does it require 'direct evidence.' Thus, the correct answer is: a) Reasonable suspicion.
