What constitutes "specific and articulable facts" supporting a frisk?

The concept of "specific and articulable facts" refers to a threshold that law enforcement must meet to conduct a stop-and-frisk under the Fourth Amendment. This standard stems from the need for a reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous. The correct response embodies this principle by recognizing that a combination of observations made by law enforcement and any relevant background history of the suspect forms a basis that justifies the invasive action of a frisk.

When officers rely on a blend of their firsthand observations, such as the individual’s behavior, demeanor, or proximity to a crime scene, in conjunction with any known history of criminal activity, it creates a well-rounded perspective that helps establish reasonable suspicion. This approach ensures that stops are not arbitrary but are instead contingent on objective facts that can be articulated in court.

The other options do not satisfy the requirement of having specific and articulable facts. For instance, random reports or general assumptions fail to provide the necessary individual context and specificity. Similarly, anonymous tips, while potentially useful, often lack corroborative details that would support a lawful frisk. Thus, the combination of direct observations and the suspect's history is crucial in meeting the legal standards required for such police actions.