What action is generally permitted during a Terry stop, based on US v. Glenna?

During a Terry stop, which is a brief stop and frisk based on reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause, handcuffing individuals for officer safety is generally permitted. This is rooted in the need for law enforcement officers to ensure their safety as they approach potentially dangerous situations. The ruling in US v. Glenna underscores that when officers reasonably believe that they are encountering a potentially threatening situation, they are justified in taking measures such as handcuffing for their protection, provided it is appropriate under the circumstances.

The justification for this practice lies in the necessity for officers to ensure that they can conduct their inquiries without the added risk of harm. Handcuffing can help maintain control of the scene and prevent possible flight or aggression from the individual being stopped. This action is seen as a safety precaution and not an arrest, which is important in maintaining the legal boundaries established by the Fourth Amendment.

The other options involve actions that typically require a higher standard of justification, such as probable cause or explicit consent, which are not aligned with the principles guiding a Terry stop.