How does a stop differ from an arrest in terms of legal threshold and duration?

• A. A stop is brief and based on reasonable suspicion; an arrest requires probable cause and lasts longer.
• B. An arrest is brief and based on reasonable suspicion; a stop requires probable cause and lasts longer.
• C. Both require probable cause and differ only in duration.
• D. Stops and arrests are legally identical.

Answer: (A)

The main idea is that the justification and the intrusion level differ between a stop and an arrest. A stop, or brief detention, is justified by reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity. It is intentionally short and limited in scope; officers hold the person just long enough to confirm or dispel that suspicion, after which the person should be free to go if nothing more is found.

An arrest, on the other hand, is a full seizure requiring probable cause that a crime has been committed. It is a more intrusive action that takes the person into custody and can last longer, allowing for further questioning and investigative steps, while the person is not free to leave.

So the correct choice highlights that stops are based on reasonable suspicion and are brief, whereas arrests require probable cause and last longer. The other options mix up the levels of suspicion or treat stops and arrests as the same, which isn’t accurate.