Which of the following best describes the threshold for a lawful brief detention under the reasonable suspicion standard?

• A. Based on probable cause to arrest.
• B. Based on specific facts indicating a crime is afoot and the officer's experience.
• C. Based on a court order.
• D. Based on mere hunch or a single suspicious attribute without articulable facts.

Answer: (B)

The key idea here is that a lawful brief detention hinges on reasonable suspicion, which must be based on specific, articulable facts and reasonable inferences drawn from the officer’s experience. This means the stop is justified when the officer can point to concrete facts suggesting that criminal activity is afoot, and can connect those facts to a plausible inference through their training and experience. That combination—observable facts plus a trained interpretation leading to a reasonable inference of wrongdoing—fits the threshold for a stop better than any higher standard or vague feeling.

Why this is best: it captures the balance of standards set by case law like Terry v. Ohio. Reasonable suspicion is not mere guesswork; it relies on facts that can be articulated and explained, plus logical inferences based on experience, to justify a brief detention.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: relying on probable cause to arrest sets the bar too high for a temporary stop. A court order is not required to briefly detain someone. And a mere hunch or a single suspicious attribute without articulable facts fails the required factual basis—the stop must be supported by specific observations and rational inferences, not by a gut feeling.