Which case affirmed that law enforcement can rely on each other's knowledge to form conclusions about suspects?

The case that affirmed law enforcement's ability to rely on each other's knowledge when forming conclusions about suspects is indeed United States versus Meade. This case addresses the concept of collective knowledge within law enforcement, which means that officers can consider information and experiences shared among them when making decisions about investigations and suspect engagement.

In this context, the court held that the collective knowledge of law enforcement officers can be relied upon to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause. This principle reinforces the idea that police work is often collaborative, and officers can draw on information known by their colleagues in order to take appropriate action.

The other cases mentioned do not focus on the principle of collective knowledge among law enforcement. For instance, United States versus Lopez pertains to gun possession in schools, Ferguson versus City of Charleston discusses medical privacy and drug testing, and Miranda versus Arizona centers on the rights of individuals during police interrogations. Each of these cases tackles different legal issues and does not encapsulate the concept affirmed in Meade about shared knowledge among law enforcement officials.