What is allowed under Terry v. Ohio during police encounters?

The ruling in Terry v. Ohio established that law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited pat-down of an individual's outer clothing, commonly referred to as a "stop and frisk," if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual may be armed and dangerous. This reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts, rather than just a vague hunch or unparticular intuition.

The purpose of this legal standard is to balance the need for officer safety with the constitutional rights of individuals. By allowing a limited search for weapons, the court aimed to protect both law enforcement officers and the public while also ensuring that citizens are not subjected to arbitrary searches without sufficient justification.

The other options do not align with the standards set forth in Terry v. Ohio. Routine searches without cause would violate individuals' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searching inside a subject's clothing would go beyond the permissible scope of a pat-down as defined by the ruling, and using forceful means for compliance could contravene the principles of lawful police conduct unless the situation necessitates it as a response to an immediate threat. Thus, the correct understanding of Terry v. Ohio is that it specifically permits a pat-down for weapons only when reasonable suspicion exists.