Answer :
Final answer:
Reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop is based on articulable facts rather than hunches or intuition. It is a lower standard than probable cause and is sufficient for police to conduct a stop and frisk under the Terry v. Ohio (1968) ruling.
Explanation:
Reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop is based on C) Articulable facts.
In the landmark case Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that police could perform what has since been known as a Terry stop or a stop and frisk, when they have reasonable suspicion that a person may be involved in criminal activity. Unlike probable cause—which requires a higher standard of evidence and is necessary for obtaining a warrant or conducting searches under exigent circumstances—reasonable suspicion is based on specific, articulable facts and rational inferences from those facts.
Reasonable suspicion can be established if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person is, has been, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. It must be based on more than just a hunch or intuition, as these don't meet the standard of articulable facts required to justify a Terry stop.
