Final answer:
Igor should conduct a Terry stop and perform a limited pat-down for weapons, as this is legally justified under Terry v. Ohio when there is reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous. Other options, like a full search without consent or a warrant, may violate the Fourth Amendment, and obtaining consent or a warrant is proper before a more invasive search.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Igor, without a warrant, is reasonably led to believe he is dealing with an armed and dangerous criminal, the recommended course of action is to proceed with a Terry stop and conduct a limited pat-down for weapons. This type of stop-and-frisk procedure was established in Terry v. Ohio, which allows for the pat-down if there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Such a search is intended to ensure the safety of the officer by allowing them to disarm a potentially dangerous individual, while respecting the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights.
Conducting a full search without consent or a warrant, requesting the suspect's permission for a search, or releasing the suspect without further action are not recommended in this scenario. A full search without consent or a warrant could violate the Fourth Amendment unless other specific circumstances justify such a search. However, if consent is given voluntarily, or if there are exigent circumstances such as the risk of evidence being destroyed, a search can be legally conducted without a warrant.
Finally, it's imperative for law enforcement to remember that if they do take a suspect into custody, they are required to read them their Miranda rights before commencing any interrogation to ensure that the suspect's statements can be admissible in court.