Which of the following is a basis for establishing reasonable suspicion?

Which of the following is a basis for establishing reasonable suspicion?

• A. Specific, articulable facts
• B. An officer's training and experience
• C. A mere hunch not tied to facts
• D. A combination of facts and inferences

Answer: (A)

Reasonable suspicion must be grounded in facts that can be described and justified. That means the officer can point to concrete observations or information—things you can articulate—that point toward activity being criminal or related to a suspect. The facts themselves provide the basis; inferences drawn from those facts are allowed, but they must be tied to something observable or verifiable. A mere hunch isn’t enough, because it lacks concrete details to support the suspicion. An officer’s training and experience can help interpret and connect the facts, but they don’t replace the need for specific, articulable observations as the basis for the suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion must be grounded in facts that can be described and justified. That means the officer can point to concrete observations or information—things you can articulate—that point toward activity being criminal or related to a suspect. The facts themselves provide the basis; inferences drawn from those facts are allowed, but they must be tied to something observable or verifiable. A mere hunch isn’t enough, because it lacks concrete details to support the suspicion. An officer’s training and experience can help interpret and connect the facts, but they don’t replace the need for specific, articulable observations as the basis for the suspicion.