Which legal doctrine allows law enforcement to stop and question a person if they have reasonable suspicion?

The stop-and-frisk doctrine, formally known as the Terry v. Ohio decision, is the legal principle that permits law enforcement officers to stop an individual based on reasonable suspicion that the person may be involved in criminal activity. This doctrine allows officers to briefly detain and question the person without a warrant, as long as they have specific and articulable facts that support their suspicion.

A key aspect of this doctrine is that it provides a necessary balance between individual rights and public safety. The officer's training and experience, along with the circumstances observed, play a crucial role in establishing reasonable suspicion. If the officer suspects that a person is armed and dangerous, they are also permitted to conduct a limited frisk for weapons to ensure their own safety and the safety of others.

In terms of the other options, the search and seizure doctrine primarily deals with the rules governing how law enforcement can conduct searches and seize property or evidence, requiring probable cause in most circumstances. The probable cause doctrine is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion and is necessary for obtaining search warrants or making arrests. Detainment doctrine is not a widely recognized legal term and doesn't specifically address the parameters of reasonable suspicion as articulated in the stop-and-frisk framework.