What did the Supreme Court rule in Terry v. Ohio regarding "stop and frisk"?

The Supreme Court's ruling in Terry v. Ohio established that police officers are permitted to stop and frisk an individual based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. This landmark decision recognized that in certain situations, officers may need to act swiftly to prevent crime and ensure their own safety or the safety of others. The Court found that the severity of the intrusion on an individual’s Fourth Amendment rights (which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures) is counterbalanced by the need for officers to conduct brief stops and limited searches when they have a reasonable belief that an individual may be armed and involved in criminal activity.

This ruling set a significant precedent in law enforcement practices, allowing for proactive policing while still maintaining a level of protection for individuals against arbitrary governmental actions. Consequently, "reasonable suspicion" serves as a lower standard than "probable cause," granting officers more flexibility in their law enforcement duties. This concept has influenced how stops and searches are conducted, leading many jurisdictions to adopt practices that balance public safety with individual rights.