Answer :
Final answer:
Reasonable suspicion and probable cause are critical legal standards in law enforcement, each requiring different levels of certainty. Reasonable suspicion allows for stops and frisks with less evidence, while probable cause often necessitates a warrant, except in exigent circumstances. The key difference lies in the level of certainty and type of evidence required for each.
Explanation:
Both reasonable suspicion and probable cause are concepts firmly entrenched in the legal standards governing police conduct. Reasonable suspicion is a lower threshold, permitting officers to stop and frisk individuals if they believe a crime has been committed, is in progress, or is about to occur, as established in Terry v. Ohio (1968).
Conversely, probable cause requires a higher standard of certainty, often necessitating a warrant for searches and arrests unless exigent circumstances are present. While reasonable suspicion can be derived from specific and articulable facts, probable cause necessitates a belief, based on factual evidence, that a crime has been committed.
Both standards can be established through witness testimony, physical evidence, or other forms of proof that contribute to the totality of circumstances an officer or court considers.
However, the choice in the provided answers that specifically delineates the differentiation between reasonable suspicion and probable cause with a focus on the level of certainty required by each is that 'reasonable suspicion is established through specific and articulable facts, while probable cause requires a higher level of certainty.' This emphasizes the nuanced legal standards that govern law enforcement actions and judicial proceedings.
