Answer :
Final answer:
The Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio established that police can stop and frisk individuals based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is lower than probable cause, which is necessary for more serious actions like arrests. The ruling aims to provide law enforcement the ability to act on suspicions while still protecting citizens' rights.
Explanation:
Legal Standards for Police Stops and Frisks
In the case of Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court established that police may stop and frisk individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime, is currently committing a crime, or is about to commit a crime. This standard of reasonable suspicion is notably lower than probable cause, which is the standard required for obtaining search warrants or making arrests in more serious situations.
To illustrate, if a police officer observes suspicious behavior that suggests potential criminal activity, such as someone acting nervously in a high-crime area, this could constitute reasonable suspicion and justify a stop and frisk. On the other hand, probable cause would be needed if the officer were to arrest that individual or conduct a more invasive search.
It's essential to understand that reasonable suspicion does not require the certainty or abundance of evidence necessary for charges to hold in court; it only requires enough suspicion based on specific facts to justify initial contact. Thus, through Terry v. Ohio, the court has allowed for a balance between law enforcement needs and individual rights.
Learn more about Stop and Frisk Standards here:
https://brainly.com/question/29617862
