In United States law, a reasonable suspicion is an articulable reason to suspect that a person has engaged in or is planning to engage in a criminal act. To be valid, a reasonable suspicion must convince an uninvolved reasonable person when described to him; a mere hunch or nebulous suspicion is not enough.

This is the weakest standard of evidence that has meaning in U.S. law. The Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. This brief detention is called a Terry stop. The case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada further established that a person may be required to identify himself to an officer during such a stop. However, an arrest may not be made based on a reasonable suspicion; probable cause is required. Further, a person is not required to answer any other questions during a Terry stop, and the detention must be brief.

Examples

The courts have ruled that a stop for a reasonable suspicion may be appropriate in the following cases: when a person possesses many unusual items which would be useful in a crime and appears agitated, when a person matches a description of a suspect, or when a person runs away at the sight of police officers. However a reasonable suspicion may not apply merely because a person refuses to answer questions, declines to allow a voluntary search, or is of a suspected race or ethnicity.

External links

• A definition on Dictionary.com
• A brief description of a reasonable suspicion