Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard used in criminal procedure that allows law enforcement officers to assess the justification for their decision to conduct a search.
When an officer stops an individual for a search, courts require that the officer has either a search warrant, probable cause to search, or a reasonable suspicion to search. In descending order of what gives an officer the broadest authority to perform a search, courts have found that the order is search warrant, probable cause, and then reasonable suspicion.
Reasonable Suspicion as Applied to Stop & Frisk
In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court held that if a police officer reasonably believes "that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person may be armed and presently dangerous"- then the officer may stop and search the individual. The Court held that to determine whether the police officer acted reasonably in the stop, courts should consider “the specific reasonable inferences which he is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his experience,” rather than merely relying on a hunch.
In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004), a Nevada state statute “requires a person detained by an officer [during a Terry stop] to identify himself” by providing his name. In Hiibel, the Supreme Court held that because the statute only asked for a name, not identification, and because it did “not alter the nature of the stop itself, changing neither its duration nor its location,” the statute “properly balances the intrusion on the individual’s interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests.” Thus, the Court held that the statute is constitutional.
Further Reading
For more information on reasonable suspicion, please see the University of Pittsburgh Law Review article, Indiana University Law Journal article, and Touro Law Review article.
[Last updated in March of 2024 by the Wex Definitions Team]