Which statement best describes what is required for a lawful stop based on reasonable suspicion?

• A. A warrant must be obtained before stopping.
• B. An officer must be certain of guilt.
• C. A reasonable belief based on specific, articulable facts that criminal activity may be afoot.
• D. The officer's personal intuition alone.

Answer: (C)

Reasonable suspicion allows a brief stop when there is a reasonable belief, based on specific, articulable facts, that criminal activity may be afoot. Those facts must be objective and describable—things a reasonable officer could articulate to a supervisor or in court—rather than a mere hunch or intuition. A warrant is not required to make such a stop, and the belief does not need to be certainty of guilt; it only needs to be enough to justify a short investigative seizure. Examples of articulable factors include observed suspicious behavior, matching a description, location in a high-crime area, attempts to avoid contact, or other cues that training and experience recognize as potentially linked to criminal activity. The purpose of the stop is to briefly verify or dispel the suspicion, and the action remains limited to what is necessary given the information available.