What must police officers do before conducting a stop and frisk according to Terry v. Ohio?

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established the principle that police officers can stop and frisk individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity and may be armed. Before conducting such a stop and frisk, the officers must identify themselves as law enforcement and make inquiries about the individual's actions or intent. This initial identification is crucial as it establishes the legitimacy of their interaction with the individual and helps the officer articulate the basis for their reasonable suspicion.

The requirement to identify themselves serves multiple functions: it informs the individual that they are interacting with law enforcement, which can help maintain order and ensure a level of respect and authority during the encounter. Additionally, making inquiries allows officers to gather more information that can confirm or dispel their suspicions, which is a key aspect of justifying the stop.

Other options, such as seeking permission from a judge, waiting for backup, or moving individuals to a police station, do not align with the immediate nature of a stop and frisk as allowed under Terry v. Ohio. The ruling permits quick, on-the-spot assessments based on reasonable suspicion rather than requiring more formal legal processes or additional personnel to be involved.