Final answer:
The legal limit of a person's frisk by law enforcement is set by the requirement of reasonable suspicion and is protected by the Fourth Amendment, which ensures against unreasonable searches and seizures. The extent of the frisk is constrained to where there is reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question pertains to the extent of personal searches carried out by law enforcement or school officials. Specifically, the question is asking about the legal limits of a frisk conducted by an officer. According to Terry v. Ohio, police may stop and frisk a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime, and frisk the individual for weapons if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. This action must not violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court case involving Savanna and the principal details a situation where a search went beyond reasonable suspicion. The strip search conducted was ruled excessively invasive and not warranted because the prescription drugs found were not significantly different from over-the-counter painkillers and small in quantity, posing no serious threat to student wellbeing. There wasn't a reasonable suspicion that Savanna was hiding contraband in her undergarments, making that level of search unnecessary.
The Constitutional texts cited, including the Fourth Amendment rights and other relevant clauses, establish the foundation that personal searches must be based on probable cause and are limited to ensure individuals' rights against unreasonable searches are not violated.