Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) Practice Exam

What is the standard of justification needed to support a legal Terry stop?

1. Mere suspicion

2. Reasonable suspicion

3. Probable cause

4. Articulable suspicion

The correct answer is: Reasonable suspicion

A Terry stop, established by the Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio, requires law enforcement officers to have reasonable suspicion to justify stopping and briefly detaining an individual. This standard is lower than probable cause, which is necessary for arrests and obtaining search warrants but higher than mere suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is based on specific, articulable facts that the officer observes or knows about the individual in question—such as behavior that suggests criminal activity might be taking place. This means that officers must have a rationale that is grounded in the facts available to them at the moment of the stop, even if these facts are not sufficient for probable cause to make an arrest. Mere suspicion does not provide enough legal basis for a Terry stop as it does not meet the threshold of specific articulable facts supporting a belief that criminal activity is afoot. Probable cause reflects a higher standard requiring a reasonable belief that a crime has occurred or is occurring, which is not applicable for brief stops. Articulable suspicion refers to the ability of an officer to explain their reasoning for the stop in terms of observed behavior, but it is reasonable suspicion that encompasses the broader concept necessary for justifying a Terry stop.