More than a Mere Hunch
A legal standard for police stops and searches requires reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts.  A gut feeling does not justify detaining someone.  Officers need concrete reasons supported by evidence to make lawful commands toward a citizen/suspect under the Fourth Amendment.  Guessing should not be accepted by a judge as evidence for stopping a person for investigation.

Reasonable Suspicion
Officer must have specific, articulable facts, based on their training and experience, leading them to reasonably believe a person is committing, about to commit, or has committed a crime, justifying a brief stop or detention, even if it’s less than probable cause, requiring more than a hunch but less than proof beyond doubt, often determined by the “totality of the circumstances”.

Probable Cause
The officer has enough clear, reasonable facts and evidence (more than a hunch) to believe a crime has occurred or is occurring, justifying an arrest, search, or seizure.  It requires concrete information, not just suspicion, and is determined case-by-case.

Comparison: Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause (Wisconsin)
A core difference between the two is quantity and quality of evidence.  Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch but less than what qualifies as probable cause.  Probable cause needs facts to show a crime likely happened.

In Wisconsin, reasonable suspicion allows brief investigative stops, like Terry stops, based on specific articulated facts suggesting potential criminal activity.  Probable cause is a higher standard requiring a reasonable belief a crime has occurred, justifying arrests, warrants, and more intrusive actions.  Reasonable suspicion sometimes develops into probable cause during an encounter.

An officer can interpret denials and fleeing a scene as admission of guilt prompting further investigation.

State Impositions upon Conduct of Law Enforcers

Rule of Law
The term “rule of law” implies all persons, institutions, and government employees are accountable to laws that are put into effect by official proclamation.

Oath of Office
An oath of office is taken as an agreement to maintain standards imposed by constitutions of state and federal government.  Violating an oath of office in Wisconsin is covered in Wis Leg Chapter 946.

Standards of Conduct
The Ethics Commission administers and enforces Wisconsin’s Code of Ethics for Public Officials. 

Code of Ethics
The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) provides a Code of Ethics applying to officers nationwide.

Serves as standards of conduct officers are sworn to uphold, and violations can lead to disciplinary action.

Due Process
Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, law enforcers are required constitutionally to consider due process while interacting with citizens.  Suspects are granted due process throughout criminal events.

Unreasonable Searches & Seizures
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is granted to the public in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Wisconsin Constitution Articles 1 & 11.  Showing an officer had no evidence that disqualified fourth amendment protection serves as a credible element for defense or prosecution.  Note, privacy rights differ when the concept of protecting the public becomes part of the equation.

While state governments can vary from one another and from the federal government within limitations, that government must still be continually approved by federal courts to be acknowledged as valid and self-governing.  Simultaneously, federal overreach is prevented while federal preemption exists, including:

The system likely does want to hold itself accountable.  Its best to keep officials informed of expectations and given the sense of being monitored by the public to support that officials produce what they were elected for.

Articulable Facts
Specific concrete details and observations an officer must be able to clearly explain (articulate) to a suspect for justifying a suspicion of criminal activity, that goes beyond a mere hunch or gut feeling, to legally stop, detain or search someone.  These facts must be objective enough that a reasonable person could understand them and connect them to potential illegal behavior.

Comparison: Lawful & Unlawful
Things lawful are actions permitted or established by law that are considered law-abiding or legitimate and follow established rules or codes.  It implies legitimacy, order, and a commitment to societal structures.

Things unlawful are against a specific written law.  Illegal acts are unlawful, civil wrongs or violations of public policy.

Not all unlawful acts are illegal such as violating a contract against public policy which is unlawful but not a crime.