Final answer:
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard for law enforcement that is lower than probable cause and is not a bright line rule. It involves an officer's assessment of the situation based on specific facts and rational inferences. The application of this standard can be nuanced and variable.
Step-by-step explanation:
The term 'reasonable suspicion' refers to the legal standard that law enforcement officers must meet before they can perform certain investigative procedures such as stops, frisks, and limited searches. Unlike the more stringent standard of 'probable cause' that is required for obtaining a search warrant, reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold and is based on specific and articulable facts combined with rational inferences from those facts. It is not a bright line rule and its application can vary depending on the totality of circumstances of each individual case. For example, in Terry v. Ohio, the court ruled that police may stop a person if they have reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime.
While reasonable suspicion does provide a framework for police investigations, it also raises concerns related to civil liberties and the potential for abuse, such as in cases of racial profiling or unlawful stops. The requirement to demonstrate reasonable suspicion is less clear-cut than a bright line rule, which is more definitive and predictable in its application. The assessment of whether reasonable suspicion exists is often nuanced and subject to judicial interpretation.