I’ve been slammed here before by suggesting that law enforcement is ham-strung by black/white ( maybe I should say either/or) rules of engagement. I believe there always exists a little gray area where reasonable officers might read a situation differently, especially when it comes to suspicion of or prevention of a crime, a domestic disturbance or other hot scene where someone might need to be arrested but you don’t have all the facts or the luxury of time to get the facts.
One PC solution for prevention is “random” searching. Pull every 10th in line for enhanced search, etc.
It’s like putting a blindfold on and swinging at a pinata.
The very term “reasonable suspicion” implies that something about the individual sets off your instinctive alarms. Appearance (matching description), behavior, mannerisms, dress, actions, direction of travel or speed of travel all guide an officer apprehending a criminal after a crime.
Take it a step further to anticipating crime and you must add profiling to randomness ( since you really can’t strip search everyone everywhere). This means you have to use race, religion, ethnicity, manner of speech, dress, attitude and demeanor, eye contact or lack thereof, or other less definable sensory input to be effective.
I think the goal is to be effective. If statistics point to certain criteria as being high probability, then the suspicion becomes reasonable.
No argument here.