How is "reasonable suspicion" defined?

"Reasonable suspicion" is defined as a belief based on specific and articulable facts that would lead a law enforcement officer to suspect that a person may be involved in criminal activity. This standard requires more than just a vague hunch or unparticular feeling; it must be rooted in observable facts or circumstances that can be described and justified.

In practical terms, this means that an officer must have a valid reason related to a situation, such as suspicious behavior, the context of the environment, or discrepancies in a person's story, that logically leads to a suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is necessary for actions such as stop-and-frisk procedures, where the officer needs to establish a legitimate basis for engaging with an individual.

The other choices do not capture the legal standard required for reasonable suspicion. An assumption made by the officer lacks the necessary foundation based on facts, while a gut feeling is too subjective and does not meet the requirement of being based on observable behaviors. Generalizations from past experiences may not apply to a specific individual's behavior and fail to establish the objective basis needed for reasonable suspicion. Thus, the correct understanding is that reasonable suspicion must always be grounded in specific and articulable facts.