Reasonable suspicion landmark case associated with street stops and frisks is which case?

• A. Mapp v. Ohio
• B. Brown v Board
• C. Terry v. Ohio
• D. Malley v. Briggs

Answer: (C)

This question tests understanding of the stop-and-frisk rule and the standard that allows police to briefly detain and check someone for weapons. The landmark ruling on this is Terry v. Ohio, which held that a police officer may stop a person if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity, and may conduct a quick frisk for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous. The key idea is that “reasonable suspicion” is a specific, articulable basis—based on the totality of the circumstances—not just a hunch. The frisk is a limited safety measure, intended only to check for weapons, and the detention is temporary and purpose-specific.

So the best answer is Terry v. Ohio because it established this particular authority and standard for street stops and frisks. The other cases deal with different constitutional issues: for example, one focuses on the exclusionary rule for illegally obtained evidence, another on desegregation in education, and another on different aspects of police procedure or liability. None of them set the stop-and-frisk framework explained here.