Terry v. Ohio established which rule for police stops?

Terry v. Ohio established which rule for police stops?

• A. The exclusionary rule
• B. The plain view doctrine
• C. The Miranda requirement
• D. The stop-and-frisk rule

Answer: (D)

Stop-and-frisk is the rule that allows a police officer to briefly stop a person and conduct a quick frisk for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. Terry v. Ohio established that such stop-and-frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, provided the stop is limited in scope and duration and the frisk is limited to a search for weapons. This is different from other doctrines: the exclusionary rule deals with whether illegally obtained evidence can be used; the plain view doctrine concerns evidence seized only if it is in plain view during a lawful observation; the Miranda rule concerns rights warnings during custodial interrogation, not stops. Therefore, the rule most associated with police stops is the stop-and-frisk rule.

Stop-and-frisk is the rule that allows a police officer to briefly stop a person and conduct a quick frisk for weapons when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. Terry v. Ohio established that such stop-and-frisk is constitutional under the Fourth Amendment, provided the stop is limited in scope and duration and the frisk is limited to a search for weapons. This is different from other doctrines: the exclusionary rule deals with whether illegally obtained evidence can be used; the plain view doctrine concerns evidence seized only if it is in plain view during a lawful observation; the Miranda rule concerns rights warnings during custodial interrogation, not stops. Therefore, the rule most associated with police stops is the stop-and-frisk rule.