What constitutes 'reasonable suspicion' when observing an individual?

‘Reasonable suspicion’ is a legal standard that allows for a suspicion based on specific, articulable facts, rather than mere hunches or vague instincts. The correct choice, which involves contextual factors such as time and location, plays a crucial role in determining whether an individual’s behavior might warrant further investigation.

In practice, reasonable suspicion is often influenced by the context in which an observation occurs. For instance, if an individual is seen loitering in a high-crime area at an unusual hour, these circumstances might contribute to an officer's or guard's suspicion that the person could be involved in criminal activity. Observing a combination of time, location, and behavior helps create a clearer narrative that justifies the suspicion.

In contrast to this, witnessing a specific crime firsthand would fall under the category of probable cause, which is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. General suspicions based on appearance alone do not provide sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion, as they lack the concrete basis necessary to justify an assumption about a person's potential criminal activity. Prior knowledge of an individual’s criminal background can inform assessments but alone does not satisfy the requirement for reasonable suspicion without current factors indicating suspicious behavior.