What must police officers have before they can search and seize according to Terry v. Ohio?

In the landmark case Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court established the standard for "stop and frisk" procedures conducted by police officers. The ruling clarified that officers do not need a warrant to perform a brief stop and pat-down of a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual may be involved in criminal activity and may be armed and dangerous.

Therefore, the correct answer pertains to the necessity of reasonable suspicion, which is a lower threshold than probable cause. While probable cause is necessary for more invasive searches or arrests, the Terry decision specifically allows officers to enter an investigatory stop based on their observations and experience if they suspect something is suspicious. This reflects a balance between the need for law enforcement to ensure safety and the preservation of individuals' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches.

The need for a warrant, permission from the individual, or the immediate presence of a crime in order to conduct a search is not in line with the principles established in Terry, which emphasizes reasonable suspicion as the critical criterion for these situations.