The legal principle of 'Stop and Frisk' originates from which landmark case?

The legal principle of 'Stop and Frisk' originates from the landmark case Terry v. Ohio. In this 1968 Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that a police officer may stop a person on the street and question them if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. Additionally, if the officer has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous, the officer can conduct a limited pat-down of the individual's outer clothing, known as a frisk, to ensure that the person is not carrying a weapon. This case established the legal standard for stops and searches without a warrant, balancing the need for police to protect themselves and the public while also respecting individual rights under the Fourth Amendment.

The other cases listed serve other vital legal principles. Miranda v. Arizona established the requirement for Miranda warnings to protect a suspect's rights during custodial interrogation. Riley v. California addressed the warrantless search of cell phones, protecting digital privacy. Mapp v. Ohio incorporated the exclusionary rule regarding evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. While each case is significant in its own right, Terry v. Ohio specifically addresses the constitutionality of 'Stop and Frisk' procedures used in law enforcement.