What can an officer articulate to justify a "frisk" of an individual?

An officer can justify a "frisk" of an individual if they have a reasonable belief that the person might be armed and dangerous. This principle is rooted in the Terry v. Ohio decision, which established that if an officer observes behavior or has information leading them to reasonably conclude that a person poses a threat, they are permitted to perform a limited search for weapons for their own safety and the safety of others nearby.

While visible signs of drug use, behavior indicating fleeing, or a prior criminal history may contribute to an officer's overall assessment of a situation, they do not provide the specific justification necessary for a frisk. The critical element in justifying a frisk is the officer's reasonable belief concerning the presence of a weapon. This concern directly addresses the potential danger posed to both the officer and the public, making the belief about the individual having a weapon the most relevant factor for conducting a frisk.