Create a positive feed back for this post and make it a paragraph long:

Terry v. Ohio (1968) is a U.S. Supreme Court case that addressed the "stop and frisk" procedures by police under the Fourth Amendment. The Court ruled that police officers can stop and briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion and they may conduct a limited frisk for weapons if they believe the person is armed.

While I believe there are more reasons than not that the Terry Frisk works in a positive manner, I do believe that the Terry Frisk can be abused. A positive to the Terry Frisk is that it enhances officer safety. An officer is able to conduct a quick pat-down for weapons without needing probable cause, which helps ensure the officer that they are not harmed during their interaction with the subject. This creates a safer environment for everyone involved.

Another positive to the Terry Frisk is it helps get weapons off the streets and prevents crimes. Frisking a subject for weapons has the potential to deter crime by allowing officers to search and take possession of illegal weapons or weapons that are not allowed to be accessed by that subject. These weapons could have been used against in a crime against another person. This is a form of proactive policing that stops crimes before they happen.

Even though the Terry Frisk has proven to be successful in many ways, it has also come with some negatives. According to an article published by Police1, a mistake that some officers make is the misperception that officers believe if there are grounds for a "stop", there are grounds for a frisk. Officers have to be sure they have reasonable suspicion that a subject is armed and be able to articulate their observations. Lowering the standards from probable cause to reasonable suspicion gives officers more opportunities to violate a subject's Fourth Amendment Rights. Reasonable suspicion is vague and difficult to define consistently.