In a stop-and-frisk scenario, what must be established to justify the stop?

In a stop-and-frisk scenario, what must be established to justify the stop?

• A. A probable cause that the person is involved in criminal activity
• B. A reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity and that the stop is limited in scope
• C. A warrant
• D. A confession by the suspect

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that a stop can be lawfully made when an officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. That means there are specific facts or rational inferences that would lead a reasonable person to suspect wrongdoing, not just a gut feeling. The stop must be narrow in scope and brief, limited to investigating that suspicion, and it does not require a warrant or probable cause. This is why the best choice is the one that states there must be a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the stop must be limited in scope. A warrant is not required for a stop, probable cause is a higher standard than is needed for a stop, and a confession does not justify the stop itself.

The key idea is that a stop can be lawfully made when an officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. That means there are specific facts or rational inferences that would lead a reasonable person to suspect wrongdoing, not just a gut feeling. The stop must be narrow in scope and brief, limited to investigating that suspicion, and it does not require a warrant or probable cause. This is why the best choice is the one that states there must be a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and the stop must be limited in scope. A warrant is not required for a stop, probable cause is a higher standard than is needed for a stop, and a confession does not justify the stop itself.