In what landmark decision did the Supreme Court rule that police can perform a stop and frisk when they have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

The landmark decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that police can perform a stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is Terry v. Ohio. This case established significant legal precedents regarding the rights of law enforcement officers to conduct brief stops and limited searches of individuals without a warrant, provided they have reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity.

In Terry v. Ohio, the Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit law enforcement officers from stopping a person for reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior and conducting a pat-down for weapons if they believe that the individual may be armed and dangerous. This ruling strikes a balance between the government's interest in preventing crime and the individual's right to privacy and security against unreasonable searches.

The other cases mentioned, while significant in their own rights, do not pertain to the stop and frisk doctrine established in Terry v. Ohio. For example, Miranda v. Arizona deals with the rights of individuals in custody and the requirement for police to inform them of their rights before interrogation, while Mapp v. Ohio addresses the exclusionary rule and the application of the Fourth Amendment to the states. Tennessee v. Garner pertains to the use of deadly force by law enforcement and the circumstances under which it is justified.