But isn't "reasonable suspicion" a _terrible_ legal standard of proof? Why is "reasonable suspicion" helpful to law enforcement while "probable cause" may hinder law enforcement? Can someone explain a situation where "reasonable suspicion" helps law enforcement while "probable cause" would allow a criminal to go free? To me "suspicion" seems synonymous with "psychic hunch." So "reasonable suspicion" is like a "reasonable psychic hunch." Nobody is psychic. What if a law enforcement official's "reasonable suspicion" is that he has "a hunch" about you? Is "a hunch" unreasonable? It sure as hell sounds unreasonable. Why the hell would the Supreme Court allow such a gray term to endanger the Fourth Amendment when we have "probable cause" that requires evidence rather than a hunch?