According to the legal principles established by the courts, what must exist for an officer to act on reasonable suspicion?

For an officer to act on reasonable suspicion, there must be specific facts or circumstances that lead them to believe a person may be involved in criminal activity. This standard is grounded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unlike probable cause, which requires a higher level of certainty regarding criminal activity, reasonable suspicion allows law enforcement to engage in brief investigative stops based on the totality of the circumstances.

Specific facts might include the behavior of the individual, the time and location of the encounter, and any relevant prior knowledge the officer has regarding the area or the person in question. This foundational principle ensures that officers do not make arbitrary decisions based solely on instincts or assumptions but rather on observable facts that can be articulated and justified. This approach balances the need for effective law enforcement with protecting individual rights.

Other options mentioned lack the necessary legal framework: having a personal belief of guilt is subjective and does not hold up in a legal context, clear and present danger pertains to imminent threats rather than suspicion, and a request from a higher authority does not inherently provide the legal grounds for suspicion. The requirement of specific facts ensures that any action taken by the officer upholds constitutional standards.