In Terry v. Ohio, what is required for a stop and frisk?

In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the requirement for a stop and frisk is established as "reasonable suspicion that a crime is occurring." The Supreme Court determined that law enforcement officers do not need probable cause, which is a higher legal standard typically required for making arrests. Instead, officers must have specific, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to suspect that criminal activity is afoot, allowing them to conduct a brief investigatory stop.

This ruling recognizes the balance between individual rights and public safety, permitting officers to act on their observations and experience without needing the more substantial evidence required for an arrest. The concept of reasonable suspicion is crucial because it provides police with the necessary authority to ensure their safety and the safety of the public while still respecting constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.