Talk:Reasonable suspicion/Archive 1

first sentence, grammar and sense
Someone should fix the first sentence, which is ungrammatical and doesn't parse. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard FOR something (permissible search?) that REQUIRES something (information that...).

Pjq49 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)pjq49 [[]]

Reasonable and probable grounds
I believe this would be the appropriate article to add reasonable and probable grounds as it applies to Canadian law. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't that be more appropriate under an article of that name? "Reasonable suspicion" is a particular legal term of art in the U.S. with very specific applications.  I don't know much of anything about the Canadian justice system, so I can't comment specifically, but I'm inclined to think the differences would be great enough to warrant a special article. Jkatzen (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hiibel case
An anonymous editor deleted the reference to the Hiibel case on the ground that Hiibel does not represent national (U.S.) policy. Actually, I think it does represent national policy -- the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that all across the nation, any state can (if it wants to do so) have a law that punishes people for refusing to identify themselves to police officers. The fact that some states might choose not to enact such laws is a separate consideration.

However, maybe the reference to the Hiibel case is only tangentially related to the subject of "reasonable suspicion," and maybe it should be removed from the article for that reason. I'll leave that for other editors to consider. Yours, Famspear 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the IP editor's reason for removing the reference to Hiibel, but I think the relationship of that case to this topic is tangential. I think this article should concentrate on reasonable suspicion as a level of proof, rather than detention in general. I'd again remove the reference. JeffConrad (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from Reasonable cause
The redirect from Reasonable cause to this article is misleading, because in some places (e.g., California) reasonable cause means probable cause. I'm not familiar enough with usage in various jurisdictions to say whether the redirect should be changed to Probable cause or whether this article should mention the different possible meanings. JeffConrad (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

first sentence, intentional political alteration makes no sense
The first sentence says that reasonable suspicion is a legal term in fairyland United States. That needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpatten (talk • contribs) 16:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we need this article?
It's difficult to tell whether the IP edits I reverted were vandalism or valid objections to the wording. Assuming good faith, I've tried to at least partially address the valid parts of the apparent objections by fixing some wording that was at best misleading. But this article clearly needs a lot of work, in addition to citations. Given the treatment of the topic in Legal burden of proof, does it even make sense to keep this as a separate article? JeffConrad (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable Cause to Suspect in South Australia
The "reasonable cause to suspect" provisions under South Australian criminal law are unique in all the world, and allow Police the authority to investigate on "reasonable cause to suspect", without a court warrant. This is different from reasonable suspicion in some ways, but I've redirected the page here temporarily. Christianperson (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I’m not familiar with Australian law, and particularly with what you mean by “investigate”. But a quick scan of Summary Offences Act 1953 leaves the feeling that South Australia uses “reasonable cause to suspect” to mean the same as “probable cause” in the US, and does not distinguish the lesser standard of “reasonable suspicion”. Even in the US, terminology in some jurisdictions can sometimes be confusing. among jurisdictions. For example, California uses “reasonable cause” to mean “probable cause” (needed for arrest without a warrant), which is different from the lesser standard of “reasonable suspicion” needed to detain (but not arrest) a suspect. A suspect detained on reasonable suspicion less than probable cause can be searched if the detaining officer reasonably suspects that the detainee may be armed, and can be handcuffed if the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the officer’s safety. Either is a pretty serious intrusion on the detainee’s liberty. JeffConrad (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Distinction between violent and nonviolent crimes
I removed the distinction between violent and non-violent crimes, and the claimed limits for a “frisk” in the latter circumstance, because I am unaware of any jurisprudence that has so held. If a reliable source (preferably the US Supreme Court for the US) can be provided, by all means restore this. JeffConrad (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

“Peace officer” vs. “police officer”
I’ve changed a couple of instances of police officer to peace officer, because the latter term includes many who are not police (sheriff’s deputies and many, many others) but have essentially the same authority to detain and arrest. Alternatively, we could use law enforcement officer, but its length becomes unwieldy when used very often. I’d prefer to use the proper term, but if it presents too much of a problem, I’d suggest using “police” rather than “police officer” because the former has more generic implications. And it’s shorter. JeffConrad (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

US-centrism
The article deals with the subject "reasonable suspicion" as if we did not have similar issues outside the US. The US-specific stuff should be moved to a US-specific section while keeping the intro global in scope. --Palnatoke 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know of any other nation that uses the phrase "reasonable suspicion" as a legal term. If it were just 2 words, it wouldn't merit an article (any more than any other 2-word phrase), but it's noteworthy because it's a legal term. If it's a legal term in any other countries, we should discuss that, but I don't think it is. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the comments by Quadell. Unless someone shows that the term "reasonable suspicion" -- a technical legal term in the United States-- is a technical term also used in another jurisdiction (and it might well be), the article's focus on U.S. law would appear to be proper. Yours, Famspear 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As expected, it is not: vide Lock_picking. It sounds like a rather general term... I fail to see how you can think it is only a USA term. --portugal (talk) 17:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The term is used in common law countries. Not sure about civil law countries.  However, you can't expect one person to be properly informed about reasonable suspicion in every common law country.  If you don't like this very informative article as it is, I would encourage you to research Hong Kong's reasonable suspicion standards and add them to the mix yourself. 68.105.170.237 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC).


 * That article, at least now, says "reasonable cause", not "reasonable suspicion". This is a particular term of art in the law of the United States with specific, idiosyncratic elements and results.  Unless another country uses the exact same phrasing for a term of art there, I think it should remain as it is. Jkatzen (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely the term "Reasonable suspicion" exists outside the US, for example in British Law and Hong Kong Law --Quest for Truth (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This appears for sure in other countries outside of the US. It appears in s21 and s157 of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) here and here  respectively, amongst other places. The "reasonable person" test forms a huge basis of Australian law and especially Common law.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breexora (talk • contribs) 23:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)