What criteria must be met for an officer to conduct a stop and frisk?

For an officer to conduct a stop and frisk, the standard that must be met is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. This principle originates from the landmark Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, which established that law enforcement officers can stop a person for questioning based on specific and articulable facts that lead them to believe the individual may be engaged in criminal behavior.

Additionally, the frisk, or pat-down, is justified if the officer has reason to believe that the person may be armed and poses a threat to the officer's safety or the safety of others. This two-pronged requirement of reasonable suspicion not only safeguards citizens from arbitrary stops but also ensures that officers can take necessary precautions when they have genuine concerns regarding potential violence.

General suspicion based on location is not enough to meet the legal standard required for a stop and frisk, as it lacks the specific and individualized basis necessary. Similarly, randomly selecting individuals does not fulfill the necessary criteria of reasonable suspicion; such actions would violate constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Lastly, a valid arrest warrant is not a criterion for a stop and frisk, as it pertains to a separate legal process involving the apprehension of a suspected criminal rather than the preliminary investigative stop.