Under what conditions is a stop and frisk legally justified?

A stop and frisk is legally justified under the condition of reasonable suspicion. This standard requires that a law enforcement officer has specific and articulable facts that lead them to believe that a person may be involved in criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold than probable cause, allowing officers to briefly stop and question individuals if they believe that something is not right.

During a stop and frisk, if the officer believes the person is armed and poses a threat to the officer's safety or the safety of others, they may conduct a limited pat-down of the person's outer clothing to check for weapons. This practice is based on the need for police to protect themselves and the public while balancing the need to respect individual rights.

In contrast, other options like probable cause, a warrant, or consent each entail more stringent legal requirements than what is necessary for a stop and frisk. Probable cause, for instance, is needed for arrests or searches that go beyond brief stops and does not apply in the same way to temporary detentions for questioning, while a warrant requires prior judicial approval based on evidence. Consent involves the individual's agreement to searches or questioning, which is not a necessity for stops based on reasonable suspicion.