reasonable suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure to assess the legality of a police officer’s decision to stop or search an individual. Reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts that would lead a reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring. When an officer stops someone to conduct a search, courts require one of three levels of justification: 

In descending order of authority, the strongest justification is a search warrant, followed by probable cause, and then reasonable suspicion, which provides the most limited scope of authority.

Reasonable Suspicion as Applied to Stop and Frisk

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court held that if a police officer reasonably believes that a person is armed and presently dangerous, the officer may stop and frisk the person for weapons. The Court stated that the officer’s decision must be based on “specific reasonable inferences” drawn from the facts and circumstances, rather than on a mere hunch. In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), the Court reviewed a Nevada statute requiring a person lawfully detained during a Terry stop to identify themselves by stating their name. The Court upheld the statute, finding that it did not unduly extend or alter the nature of the stop and appropriately balanced the individual’s privacy interests against legitimate governmental concerns.

[Last reviewed in October of 2025 by the Wex Definitions Team]

Keywords

Wex