May a court uphold a Terry frisk where the frisking officer did not actually suspect that the detainee was armed and dangerous?

QUESTION PRESENTED To uphold a Terry frisk as constitutional, the First and Ninth Circuits require the frisking officer to have actually suspected that the detainee may be armed and dangerous. Here, the Indiana Supreme Court joined the Seventh and Tenth Circuits by applying a purely objective standard that regards an officer’s actual suspicion as irrelevant to a Terry frisk analysis. And other courts, including the Eighth Circuit and the Supreme Court of Utah, have adopted a hybrid approach wherein an officer’s actual suspicion is a relevant—but not dispositive—factor to weigh in an ultimately objective analysis. The question presented is: May a court uphold a Terry frisk where the frisking officer did not actually suspect that the detainee was armed and dangerous?