What constitutes a "reasonable suspicion" in South Dakota law?

In South Dakota law, "reasonable suspicion" is defined as having specific and articulable facts that suggest an individual is involved in criminal activity. This standard is more than just a vague hunch or feeling; it requires law enforcement officers to observe specific behaviors or conditions that would lead a reasonably trained officer to believe that a crime is occurring, has occurred, or will occur.

This definition underscores the importance of objective evidence rather than subjective intuition. For example, if an officer observes someone engaging in activity consistent with known criminal behavior, such as furtively exchanging items in a high-crime area, those observations can provide the necessary foundation for reasonable suspicion. This is crucial because it allows law enforcement to act upon clear indicators rather than just their personal feelings or general ideas about someone.

The other choices, such as intuition based on experience or a general feeling about someone, fail to meet the legal standard required to justify a stop or more intrusive investigative actions. These options describe subjective thoughts rather than the concrete, observable facts needed to establish reasonable suspicion. Similarly, while a complaint from a citizen may be a valuable piece of information, it does not automatically constitute reasonable suspicion unless it is supported by specific facts that would lead law enforcement to have a reasonable belief that criminal activity is taking