Which factor must be present for reasonable suspicion to apply in conducting searches?

For reasonable suspicion to be valid in conducting searches, there must be articulable facts that justify the intrusion. This means that law enforcement or probation officers must have specific, observable facts or evidence that lead them to suspect a person is involved in criminal activity. Such facts can include behavior patterns, physical evidence, or unique circumstances that differentiate a person’s actions from those of a typical law-abiding citizen.

Articulable facts provide the legal foundation necessary to conduct a search, ensuring that it is not arbitrary or based solely on intuition. This requirement protects individuals' rights against unreasonable searches and keeps law enforcement accountable through concrete justifications. In legal settings, vague or generalized assumptions without specific, stated reasons do not meet the threshold of reasonable suspicion.

In contrast, general assumptions are too vague to justify an action. Witness testimony alone might provide some background but does not, by itself, constitute reasonable suspicion unless it includes specific, credible observations. Racial profiling is not only unethical but also illegal; it cannot be used as a justification for reasonable suspicion, as it relies on stereotypes rather than individual behavior.