Utah Special Function Officer (SFO) Practice Exam

What constitutes reasonable articulable suspicion?

1. A hunch based on intuition

2. A belief based solely on hearsay

3. The level of suspicion that would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity is occurring

4. Evidence of clear wrongdoing

The correct answer is: The level of suspicion that would lead a reasonable person to believe criminal activity is occurring

Reasonable articulable suspicion refers to the standard that law enforcement officers must meet to conduct brief stops or investigations, such as a stop and frisk. This standard is more than just a vague hunch or mere speculation; it requires specific and articulable facts that would lead a reasonable person to believe that criminal activity may be afoot. In this context, the correct answer emphasizes that reasonable articulable suspicion involves a belief grounded in observable facts or circumstances that would suggest that criminal activity is occurring. These facts must be more than just subjective feelings or opinions; they must also be based on an objective assessment of the situation. Other responses highlight misconceptions about what constitutes adequate suspicion. A hunch based on intuition lacks the concrete basis needed for reasonable suspicion, while a belief based solely on hearsay fails to provide the direct evidence or context needed to support such a belief. Although evidence of clear wrongdoing could support a reasonable suspicion, it is a higher standard known as probable cause, which is different from the more flexible and lower threshold of reasonable articulable suspicion.