They have to reasonably suspect, not prove...
It’s crystal clear. An officer can suspect a crime with no crime. It’s common sense.
There does not have to be an actual crime for an officer to reasonbly think there might be one and detain and question you.
Can’t understand why it’s so hard to grasp...
Here’s some more:
968.24 - ANNOT.
The potential availability of an innocent explanation does not prohibit an investigative stop. If any reasonable inference of wrongful conduct can be objectively discerned, notwithstanding the existence of other innocent inferences that could be drawn, the officers have the right to temporarily detain the individual for the purpose of inquiry. State v. Limon, 2008 WI App 77, 312 Wis. 2d 174, 751 N.W.2d 877, 07-1578.
Wrong. If the situation is that an actual crime has been reported, the cop has to first verify that a crime was committed. He can’t just think a crime was committed. What he does after that depends on whether it appears to be a felony or a misdemeanor or an infraction. A misdemenaor has to be committed in his presence, as does an infraction. A felony does not.
You have become silly and are playing stupid or you really are hopelessly stupid.
Again, there has to be a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, according to the case you cite. It’s a repetitive theme. Maybe you’ll catch onto it some day.
Lotsa luck getting a clue.
An officer may legitimately believe someone committed a particular crime, even if it happens that the suspected crime was not in fact committed. An officer may pull someone over because the person is driving erratically and the he believes the person is probably driving under the influence. If the person is in fact sober, it's entirely possible no crime was committed (it may be the person's first time behind the wheel outside a driver's ed class) but until the cop discovers otherwise, the particular crime of DUI remains a realistic possibility. What particular crime did the cops have reason to believe was committed?