Under which circumstance can officers lawfully frisk an individual?

Officers can lawfully frisk an individual when there is reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed and dangerous. This principle is grounded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The "Terry stop" doctrine, established in the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio, allows officers to conduct a limited pat-down or frisk of a person's outer clothing if they have specific and articulable facts that suggest the individual is armed.

Reasonable suspicion is more than a vague hunch; it requires specific and objective facts that an officer can articulate. For instance, if an officer observes behavior that suggests a person might be reaching for a weapon or notices that a person is acting in a manner that raises concern for the officer’s safety, this can justify a frisk. In this scenario, the emphasis is on the presence of potential danger posed by a weapon, which aligns directly with the need to ensure officer safety and public safety.

Other options, while possibly contributing to an officer's overall assessment, do not on their own establish the legal basis for a frisk. Knowing that a person has a history of violent crimes, acting suspiciously, or being in a high-crime area might influence an officer's suspicion but do not solely justify a frisk unless