Under what condition can an officer frisk a subject?

An officer can frisk a subject when there is reasonable suspicion that the individual may be armed and dangerous. This concept stems from the landmark case Terry v. Ohio, where the Supreme Court ruled that police officers have the right to stop and briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. If during this brief detention, the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed, they may conduct a frisk, or a pat-down of the outer clothing, to ensure officer safety.

Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause, allowing officers to act on specific and articulable facts that suggest someone may pose a threat. This legal framework helps balance the need for police to ensure their safety and the rights of individuals against unwarranted searches.

The other conditions listed—mere suspicion, responding to a call, or having probable cause—do not meet the legal threshold for a frisk. Mere suspicion lacks the necessary factual basis, responding to a call does not automatically grant the officer authority to conduct a frisk, and probable cause, while a higher standard of belief that a crime has occurred, is not required for a frisk.