What is considered 'reasonable suspicion'?

In the context of law enforcement and security, 'reasonable suspicion' is defined as a standard that requires specific facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that a person is involved in criminal activity. This standard is based on the totality of the circumstances and does not require the certainty needed for probable cause, but it does need to be more than just a hunch or vague feeling.

The correct choice highlights that reasonable suspicion is grounded in observable behaviors or relevant information that articulate a certain level of concern about a person's involvement in illegal activities. For instance, if an officer observes someone engaging in suspicious behavior, such as repeatedly looking over their shoulder while trying to enter a building, that can contribute to reasonable suspicion.

A vague feeling of discomfort lacks the objective criteria needed for reasonable suspicion; it must be rooted in observable facts. Assumptions made without evidence fail to meet the legal threshold necessary to justify any intervention or stop. Similarly, a normal checklist for stopping individuals could imply a formulaic or arbitrary approach that does not align with the individualized assessment required for reasonable suspicion. Thus, the emphasis on specific, factual underpinning of the correct answer aligns with legal standards governing law enforcement actions.