THE «REASONABLE SUSPICION» STANDARD IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

The article emphasizes that the standard of «reasonable suspicion» is a
fundamental element of the criminal process, ensuring both the effectiveness of
law enforcement agencies and compliance with the fundamental rights and
freedoms of the individual. It is found that the essence of the standard of
«reasonable suspicion» lies in the need for objective, specific and sufficient facts
or information that could convince a reasonable and impartial observer of the
possible involvement of a person in the commission of a criminal offense. It is
indicated that the application of the standard of «reasonable suspicion» is aimed
at avoiding arbitrary interference by the state in private life and ensuring
appropriate guarantees against unjustified restrictions. It is proven that
«reasonable suspicion» cannot be based on assumptions, intuition or general
suspicions; its basis should be real, specific evidence or information known to the
investigative authorities at the time of making a procedural decision. It is
emphasized that the «reasonable suspicion» standard is dynamic in nature - as
the pre-trial investigation progresses, the authorities must supplement and clarify
the suspicion with new evidence as soon as possible, and its presence is reviewed
taking into account all new circumstances of the criminal proceedings. It has been
established that compliance with the «reasonable suspicion» standard contributes
to the formation of legal certainty, transparency of investigations and trust in the
justice system, and also prevents abuses in the form of illegal detentions, arrests
or other restrictions on the rights of the individual. It is noted that the
«reasonable suspicion» standard is not only a procedural requirement, but also an
effective mechanism for protecting against excessive or unjustified state
intervention, which allows maintaining the proper balance between security
requirements, the effectiveness of investigations and human rights guarantees.