Which court case is associated with the concept of stop and frisk?

The court case associated with the concept of stop and frisk is Terry vs. Ohio. This landmark decision established the legal precedent that allows police officers to stop and briefly detain a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. Terry vs. Ohio specifically addressed the balance between an individual's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and the need for law enforcement to protect themselves and the public from possible harm during investigative stops.

In the case, police officer Martin McFadden observed suspicious behavior from Terry and his associates, leading him to perform a limited search (frisk) for weapons. The Supreme Court ruled that the officer's actions were justified because he had reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts. This decision set the foundation for the stop and frisk doctrine, which is a crucial concept in law enforcement and criminal procedure.

The other options refer to different legal matters: Miranda vs. Arizona deals with the rights of individuals during police interrogations, Gideon vs. Wainwright addresses the right to counsel, and Mapp vs. Ohio focuses on the exclusionary rule concerning illegal searches and seizures.