Which scenario would justify an officer's decision to frisk a companion of a detained individual?

The justification for an officer's decision to frisk a companion of a detained individual primarily revolves around the safety of both the officer and the public. When the facts indicate a potential threat to safety, it establishes a reasonable suspicion that the companion may be armed or dangerous. This is consistent with the legal standard established in Terry v. Ohio, which allows law enforcement to conduct a frisk when they believe the individual may pose a threat during an encounter.

While it is essential for officers to assess their surroundings and make decisions based on the context of the situation, merely being apprehensive or feeling unsafe is not a robust enough justification. The decision to conduct a frisk must be grounded in specific facts or circumstances that suggest the presence of risk. Furthermore, the knowledge of whether the companion is known or unknown to the officer does not inherently defense validity for a frisk; it is the situation at hand that matters. Lastly, location alone does not dictate the legitimacy of a frisk, as threats can exist anywhere regardless of whether an area is populated.

Hence, the correct scenario that justifies a frisk is when there are factual indicators of a potential threat to safety.