Talk:Reasonable suspicion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why is this a separate article from the Fourth Amendment article? Wouldn't it be better to fold this into the Fourth Amendment discussion, and make this a redirect to the Fourth Amendment?

I don't think that's a good idea. There are lots of 4th Amendment subtopics with their own pages (probable cause, search and seizure, search warrant, arrest warrant, etc.) I think the topic deserves to be covered in more detail than what would be appropriate in the 4th Amendment article. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 19:35, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] US-centrism

The article deals with the subject "reasonable suspicion" as if we did not have similar issues outside the US. The US-specific stuff should be moved to a US-specific section while keeping the intro global in scope. --Palnatoke 11:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of any other nation that uses the phrase "reasonable suspicion" as a legal term. If it were just 2 words, it wouldn't merit an article (any more than any other 2-word phrase), but it's noteworthy because it's a legal term. If it's a legal term in any other countries, we should discuss that, but I don't think it is. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 14:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I second the comments by Quadell. Unless someone shows that the term "reasonable suspicion" -- a technical legal term in the United States-- is a technical term also used in another jurisdiction (and it might well be), the article's focus on U.S. law would appear to be proper. Yours, Famspear 14:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hiibel case

An anonymous editor deleted the reference to the Hiibel case on the ground that Hiibel does not represent national (U.S.) policy. Actually, I think it does represent national policy -- the U.S. Supreme Court is saying that all across the nation, any state can (if it wants to do so) have a law that punishes people for refusing to identify themselves to police officers. The fact that some states might choose not to enact such laws is a separate consideration.

However, maybe the reference to the Hiibel case is only tangentially related to the subject of "reasonable suspicion," and maybe it should be removed from the article for that reason. I'll leave that for other editors to consider. Yours, Famspear 03:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] first sentence, grammar and sense

Someone should fix the first sentence, which is ungrammatical and doesn't parse. Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard FOR something (permissible search?) that REQUIRES something (information that...).

Pjq49 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)pjq49 [[[[]]]]

[edit] Reasonable and probable grounds

I believe this would be the appropriate article to add reasonable and probable grounds as it applies to Canadian law. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't that be more appropriate under an article of that name? "Reasonable suspicion" is a particular legal term of art in the U.S. with very specific applications. I don't know much of anything about the Canadian justice system, so I can't comment specifically, but I'm inclined to think the differences would be great enough to warrant a special article. Jkatzen (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)