If an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion, they may conduct what type of action?

The correct action that an officer may take when they have reasonable articulable suspicion is to stop and frisk the individual. This concept, often linked to the "stop and frisk" policy, is rooted in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

When an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion, it means they have specific and articulable facts that suggest a person is involved in criminal activity, but it is a lower standard than probable cause, which is necessary for making an arrest. This threshold allows officers to temporarily detain individuals to investigate further without needing a warrant.

The "stop" refers to the brief detention of an individual to ask questions and assess their situation, while the "frisk" consists of a limited pat-down of the person's outer clothing to ensure they are not carrying any weapons. This action is designed to ensure the safety of the officer and the public during the encounter.

In contrast, arresting someone without a warrant requires probable cause, which is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. Similarly, searching a person's belongings without consent or probable cause, or using unreasonable physical force to detain someone, would typically violate their Fourth Amendment rights. Thus, stopping and frisking is the appropriate action aligned with the threshold of reasonable suspicion.