Which Supreme Court case established that police may frisk a person's outer garments for officer safety?

Prepare for the Search and Seizure Module 10 Test with comprehensive flashcards and multiple choice questions, complete with hints and explanations. Get ready to excel in your exam!

Multiple Choice

Which Supreme Court case established that police may frisk a person's outer garments for officer safety?

The stop-and-frisk concept is being tested here. Terry v. Ohio established that when a police officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity and may be armed, the officer may briefly stop the person and perform a protective frisk of the outer garments to check for weapons. The frisk is limited in scope to a search for weapons to protect officer safety, not for gathering evidence of other crimes. This balance—allowing a safety-focused search with a properly grounded suspicion—is why Terry v. Ohio is the best answer. The other cases address different Fourth Amendment or constitutional topics: Mapp v. Ohio concerns the exclusionary rule and inadmissible evidence obtained unlawfully; Miranda v. Arizona concerns warnings and rights during custodial interrogation; Gideon v. Wainwright concerns the right to counsel.

The stop-and-frisk concept is being tested here. Terry v. Ohio established that when a police officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion that someone is involved in criminal activity and may be armed, the officer may briefly stop the person and perform a protective frisk of the outer garments to check for weapons. The frisk is limited in scope to a search for weapons to protect officer safety, not for gathering evidence of other crimes. This balance—allowing a safety-focused search with a properly grounded suspicion—is why Terry v. Ohio is the best answer.

The other cases address different Fourth Amendment or constitutional topics: Mapp v. Ohio concerns the exclusionary rule and inadmissible evidence obtained unlawfully; Miranda v. Arizona concerns warnings and rights during custodial interrogation; Gideon v. Wainwright concerns the right to counsel.

More practice questions