Interpreting the 4th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a search and a frisk at the same time
True or false
False.
The U.S. Supreme Court has differentiated between a "search" and a "frisk" under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The landmark case that addresses this distinction is Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
In Terry, the Supreme Court held that a police officer could perform a quick "stop and frisk" based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, which is a lower standard than the probable cause required for a search. The "frisk" is limited to a pat-down of the outer clothing for weapons to ensure the officer's safety, and does not allow for a full search unless the officer feels something that could be a weapon or contraband. This means that while an officer may frisk an individual for weapons at the same time as they are stopped, the officer cannot conduct a full search without further justification that meets a higher legal standard.
Therefore, while a frisk can happen during a stop, it does not equate to a full search. A full search typically requires either probable cause or a warrant.