In the context of Terry v. Ohio, what two actions are required for a lawful stop and frisk?

The correct choice is grounded in the legal principles established in Terry v. Ohio, which set the framework for stop and frisk procedures in the context of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. For a stop and frisk to be lawful, law enforcement officers must possess reasonable suspicion that a person is involved in criminal activity. This reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts, rather than mere hunches or unparticular suspicions.

Additionally, the officer must have a belief, based on their observations or experience, that the individual may be armed and dangerous. This forms the basis for the limited frisk, which allows officers to pat down the exterior of a person's clothing to ensure that they are not carrying any weapons. Both elements — reasonable suspicion about criminal involvement and the need to secure the officer’s safety by confirming no weapons are present — are pivotal for justifying the stop and frisk without violating constitutional rights.

The other choices do not align with the legal requirements outlined in Terry v. Ohio. Public notification, consent, and witness presence do not pertain to the standards for reasonable suspicion or the necessity of the frisk itself. Thus, the inclusion of reasonable suspicion and two articulable reasons reflects the established legal threshold necessary for justifying such police actions