the court, judging that the officer had reasonable suspicion which could be articulated (not just a hunch) that the person detained may be armed and dangerous. This was not mere "suspicion" but "reasonable suspicion" which could be articulated at a later date. This decision was made during a period of great social unrest in the United States in the 1960s, with rising crime, opposition to U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement, and race riots. It was thought that law enforcement needed to be provided with tools to deal with the unrest and new issues of urban crime. Some criticized the decision for watering down the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures; others praised it for balancing safety and individual rights. Elements The United States Supreme Court held that where: (1) a police officer observes unusual conduct by a subject; (2) the subject's conduct leads the Officer reasonably to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot, and that the subject may be armed and presently dangerous; (3) the officer identifies himself as a policeman; (4) the officer makes reasonable inquiries; and (5) nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel the officer's reasonable fear for safety, the officer may conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of the subject in an attempt to discover weapons, and that such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourteenth Amendment, so that any weapons seized may properly be introduced in evidence. Expansion through case law Reasonable suspicion To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must have "specific and articulable facts" that indicate the person to be stopped is or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. Because officers usually do not have supervision when they encounter civilians, they have discretion who to stop. Reasonable suspicion depends on the "totality of the circumstances". Reasonable suspicion is a vague term and the Supreme Court concluded it should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Often it is built out of a combination of facts, each of which would, in itself, not be enough justification for the stop. The suspicion must be of an individual person. Police officers primarily use situational factors based on criminal behavior to determine if a stop is needed. In essence, when they witness a person behaving suspiciously or violating the law, they will stop them. Other factors influencing