In which case law can an officer briefly stop and detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

The case law that allows an officer to briefly stop and detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity is Terry v. Ohio. In this landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court established the legal precedent that law enforcement officers can conduct a "stop and frisk" when they have specific and articulable facts that lead them to suspect that a person is involved in criminal activity. This ruling recognizes the need for officers to ensure their safety and the safety of others while allowing them to investigate suspicious behavior without requiring the same level of evidence needed for an arrest, which is probable cause.

The other cases mentioned do not pertain to the concept of reasonable suspicion for brief stops. Miranda v. Arizona deals with the rights of individuals during custodial interrogation and requires that suspects are informed of their rights. Riley v. California focuses on the search of cell phones without a warrant following an arrest, emphasizing the privacy rights of individuals. Katz v. United States revolves around the concept of reasonable expectation of privacy in relation to search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Each of these cases addresses different legal principles unrelated to the authority to conduct stops based on reasonable suspicion.