What constitutes "reasonable suspicion" in law enforcement?

Reasonable suspicion in law enforcement is defined as a belief based on specific and articulable facts that a person may be involved in criminal activity. This standard is more than just a vague hunch or a feeling; it requires concrete evidence or observations that can be communicated and justified to others. For instance, a law enforcement officer might observe someone engaging in behavior commonly associated with drug dealing or witness suspicious activity at a location known for criminal use.

This standard is crucial because it allows officers to take action, such as stopping and questioning a person, while still respecting constitutional rights. The requirement for specific and articulable facts helps ensure that law enforcement actions are based on more than mere intuition and prevent abuses of power that could arise from arbitrary stops or searches.

In contrast, general feelings of suspicion do not meet the legal threshold necessary for reasonable suspicion. Similarly, information from anonymous tips and rumors, unless they include specific details that can be verified, typically lack the necessary substantiation and reliability to constitute reasonable suspicion on their own. Therefore, the correct identification emphasizes that reasonable suspicion must be grounded in factual observations rather than ambiguous beliefs or unverified information.