Final answer:
The answer to the student's question whether an officer must have a reasonable suspicion to perform a "Terry" stop is True. Terry v. Ohio legally substantiates that police may stop and frisk individuals based on reasonable suspicion related to criminal activity and safety concerns without violating the Fourth Amendment.
Step-by-step explanation:
To answer the student's question: To perform a "Terry" stop, an officer must have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity? The answer is 1) True. This concept stems from the seminal case Terry v. Ohio, which established that police may stop an individual if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. Furthermore, they may frisk the suspect for weapons if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, without violating the Fourth Amendment.
In a hypothetical scenario where police apprehend two individuals suspected of an armed robbery and carrying unlawful weapons, officers would likely perform a Terry stop based on their reasonable suspicion—even if direct evidence of the armed robbery is lacking. Importantly, this reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts rather than just a hunch.
The wider application of police authority and citizen interactions illustrates how society grants officers certain powers. However, there are limits to this authority; for example, in the scenario of a routine traffic stop for speeding, the officer cannot command personal favors like demanding the driver mow the officer's lawn.
The crackdown on minor offenses, as seen in policies like Zero Tolerance Policing and Stop and Frisk, amplifies the principles of police authority. Still, these policies often lead to debates concerning police discretion and the impact they have on civil liberties and racial profiling.