3 ms·
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that requires articulable facts, not a whim. Courts regularly hold that officers didn't obtain it. For more: https://e
by maximilianroos 8y ago
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard that requires articulable facts, not a whim. Courts regularly hold that officers didn't obtain it.
For more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion
- everdrive 8y agoI agree -- and apologies, I might not have made my point very well. A different way to phrase it might be: The officers and the suspects disagree about what a reasonable suspicion might entail. Given the incentives, I don't think this is surprising. I'll admit, my point in no way addresses yours -- how often are officers adhering the the specific legal standard?
- maximilianroos 8y agoFor sure, I agree I'm really not sure how often officers violate the standard; it wouldn't shock me if it were frequent But when they do, courts will suppress the evidence, and anything that's obtained from knowledge gained in that search ("fruit of the poisoned tree"). I trust that mechanism. And think it's likely better held in the US than literally any other country (v open to evidence to the contrary though)
- dragonwriter 8y ago> But when they do, courts will suppress the evidence Not if the violation was done in “good faith”: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_exclusionary_rule https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/good_faith_exception_to_excl...
- maximilianroos 8y agoYes, thanks for the reference