Which case law allows an officer to frisk a suspect based on reasonable fear of weapon possession?

The correct case law that allows an officer to frisk a suspect based on reasonable fear of weapon possession is Terry v. Ohio. This landmark Supreme Court decision established the principle of "stop and frisk," which permits law enforcement officers to stop a person in a public place and perform a limited search (frisk) for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity and may be armed.

In the Terry case, the Court ruled that the protection of the officer's safety and the safety of others is paramount. Therefore, if an officer has specific and articulable facts that lead to a reasonable belief that a suspect might be armed, they can conduct a pat-down search for weapons without a warrant or probable cause. This decision balances the need for effective law enforcement with the rights of individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

The other cases mentioned, while significant in their own rights, do not pertain to the issue of officer safety in the context of reasonable suspicion regarding weapons. Miranda v. Arizona addresses the rights of individuals during police interrogations, Gideon v. Wainwright deals with the right to counsel, and Florida v. Jardines focuses on the sanctity of a person’s home against unlawful search.