When is it appropriate for an officer to perform a "frisk" on a suspect?

The correct answer is based on the principle of officer safety and the legal standard established by the Supreme Court in the case of Terry v. Ohio. A "frisk," also known as a pat-down, is permissible when an officer has a reasonable fear that the suspect may be armed and dangerous. This standard does not require probable cause or specific evidence of a weapon; rather, it hinges on the officer's ability to articulate a credible belief that the suspect poses an immediate threat. This allows officers to ensure their safety while conducting their duties in potentially volatile situations.

The context surrounding the other options clarifies why they do not align with the standard for performing a frisk. For example, a cooperative suspect does not automatically indicate that a frisk is necessary; cooperation may reduce the perceived threat level. Suspecting drug possession alone does not provide a reasonable fear of a weapon, which is critical for a frisk justification. Similarly, the act of a suspect confessing does not automatically warrant a frisk either; the exigent circumstances or reasonable suspicion of a weapon are the key thresholds that must be met regardless of any confession. Thus, the focus remains on the officer's assessment of immediate danger when considering a frisk.