Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court''s landmark 1968 decision, authorized police to stop and frisk individuals based on ''reasonable suspicion'' rather than the higher ''probable cause'' standard required for arrests. The ruling allowed officers to conduct brief investigatory stops when they reasonably suspect criminal activity and to pat down a suspect''s outer clothing for weapons if they believe the person is ''armed and presently dangerous.'' The Court stressed reasonable suspicion must rest on ''specific and articulable facts,'' not an officer''s hunch. In the original case, Cleveland detective Martin McFadden observed three men appearing to case a store for robbery. He stopped them, identified himself, patted down their clothing, and found concealed guns. The Court distinguished between a limited ''frisk'' for officer safety and a full search for evidence. Critics argue stop-and-frisk becomes a tool for racial profiling when officers lack true reasonable suspicion. New York City conducted nearly 700,000 stops at its 2011 peak, with 88 percent targeting Black and Latino residents.