In which case did the court apply constitutional standards to investigative stops?

The case that applied constitutional standards to investigative stops is Terry v. Ohio. This landmark decision established that police officers are permitted to stop and briefly detain a person for questioning if they have a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity. This reasonable suspicion must be based on specific and articulable facts, rather than merely a vague suspicion or hunch.

In Terry v. Ohio, the court emphasized the balance between an individual's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, as protected by the Fourth Amendment, and the government's interest in preventing crime and ensuring officer safety. The ruling allowed officers to conduct what is often referred to as a "Terry stop" or "stop and frisk," enabling them to pat down an individual for weapons if they have a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and dangerous. This case is critical in shaping police practices related to stops and searches, having a lasting impact on law enforcement procedures and constitutional law.