Which statement best distinguishes reasonable suspicion from probable cause in detentions?

• A. Probable cause is based on suspicion alone; reasonable suspicion requires concrete evidence.
• B. Reasonable suspicion is a plausible belief based on specific facts that justifies a brief detention; probable cause requires a higher standard for arrest or search.
• C. Probable cause is a plausible belief for a brief detention; reasonable suspicion justifies warrants.
• D. Reasonable suspicion requires a warrant; probable cause never requires warrants.

Answer: (B)

Reasonable suspicion is the level of justification for a brief detention. It’s a plausible belief grounded in specific facts and rational inferences from those facts, enough to justify stopping someone briefly to investigate. It’s evaluated under the totality of the circumstances facing the officer and is clearly less demanding than probable cause. Probable cause is a higher standard required for more intrusive actions like making an arrest or conducting a search; it means there are enough facts and circumstances to lead a reasonable person to believe crime has been, or will be, committed or that evidence will be found in a particular place.

So the best statement is that reasonable suspicion justifies a brief detention based on specific facts, while probable cause requires a higher standard for arrest or search. The other options misstate the relationship: probable cause is not based on suspicion alone, and reasonable suspicion does not require a warrant; probable cause does not justify a warrantless brief detention.