Which standard justifies a brief investigative stop?

• A. Reasonable suspicion
• B. Probable cause
• C. Preponderance of the evidence
• D. Beyond a reasonable doubt

Answer: (A)

Reasonable suspicion justifies a brief investigative stop. It means the officer has specific, articulable facts or rational inferences that criminal activity may be afoot, based on what is observed or reported. It’s more than a mere hunch but not as demanding as probable cause needed for an arrest. With this standard, an officer can briefly detain a person to ask questions, observe further, or conduct limited checks to confirm or dispel the suspicion, and the detention should be narrow in scope and duration.

For example, unusual or suspicious behavior in a high-crime area, a person matching a description, or interactions that raise a reasonable belief that something illegal is happening can justify a short stop. If during the stop new facts emerge that would support probable cause, the officer can pursue further action; if not, the person should be released.

The other standards are used in different contexts: probable cause is required for an arrest or obtaining a warrant; preponderance of the evidence is the civil standard of proof; beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard for convicting someone in court.