The Terry v. Ohio case allows for what type of police action?

The Terry v. Ohio case establishes the legal precedent for limited searches and seizures without probable cause, specifically through the concept of "stop and frisk." In this landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement officers can stop a person for questioning if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. Furthermore, officers may conduct a limited pat-down search of the person's outer clothing if they have reasonable belief that the individual may be armed and pose a threat to their safety or the safety of others.

This ruling is significant because it acknowledges officers' need to ensure their safety during interactions with suspects while balancing individual rights. The decision does not require the higher standard of probable cause that is necessary for arrests or full searches, thereby allowing police to take reasonable preventive measures based on their observations and experience.

The other options do not reflect the principles established in Terry v. Ohio. For example, mandatory arrest necessitates probable cause rather than the lower threshold of reasonable suspicion. Full searches of private property also require a warrant or probable cause, and detention without any evidence contradicts the legal requirement for reasonable suspicion. Thus, the correct answer focuses on the legal allowance for specific, limited interactions by police that prioritize both safety and civil liberties.