Articulable facts are building blocks of suspicion and must be which of the following?

• A. They are purely subjective impressions
• B. They are building blocks of suspicion, must be objective, good quality, and may be based on training and experience
• C. They only come from physical evidence
• D. They are irrelevant to suspicion

Answer: (B)

Articulable facts used to support suspicion must be objective, high quality, and may be based on training and experience. This means the facts are observable and describable in a way others can verify, not just personal feelings or vague impressions. Being objective helps ensure the basis for suspicion can be communicated, tested, and challenged, while high quality means the observations are specific, reliable, and relevant rather than vague or speculative. It’s appropriate for professionals to rely on training and experience to interpret cues, but the interpretation should still be rooted in observable, describable information. This approach excludes purely subjective impressions, which can’t be tested, and it isn’t limited to physical evidence alone—observed behaviors, statements, and patterns can also constitute articulable facts. They’re not irrelevant to suspicion, since articulable facts are what justify forming reasonable suspicion.