What constitutes reasonable suspicion in a law enforcement context?

Reasonable suspicion refers to the set of articulable facts and circumstances that lead a law enforcement officer to believe that a person may be involved in criminal activity. This standard is more than just a vague feeling or intuition; it requires specific, objective facts that can be communicated and justified.

For a suspicion to be deemed reasonable, an officer must have enough evidence to support their belief that criminal activity is afoot, which is built upon their knowledge, experience, training, and the surrounding circumstances. This might include observations of the suspect’s behavior, location, time of day, and other environmental factors that would lead a reasonable officer to suspect that a crime is occurring or is about to occur.

Contrastingly, a hunch based on intuition does not meet the legal standard required for reasonable suspicion because it lacks the requisite factual foundation. General information from the public can be useful but must still be evaluated and corroborated against observable facts. Observations made during routine patrols without any specific evidence do not establish reasonable suspicion either, as they lack the necessary articulable facts.

Therefore, choice A captures the essence of what reasonable suspicion entails, emphasizing that it should be based on observable, articulate facts that would lead a reasonable officer to suspect that criminal activity is taking place