Public vs. Police: Exploring Discrepancies in Perceptions of Reasonable Suspicion and Stop Extension Decisions

• In Event: POL Panel 4. Stop and Search and police powers

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to examine the discrepancies between public and law enforcement perceptions of reasonable suspicion and the use of discretion in extending traffic stops, with a focus on the influence of contextual factors, race, and gender.
Design/methodology/approach – We replicate recently published experimental results, initially administered to a convenience sample of police officers, with an expansion to a nationally representative sample of over 2400 US residents. The experiment varies the levels of evidence in the scenario, based on US Court of Appeals decisions, and participants were asked to assess the presence of reasonable suspicion and the likelihood of extending the stop for investigatory purposes.
Findings – The results reveal gaps between public and law enforcement interpretations of contextual factors that contribute to reasonable suspicion. While officers reported being less likely to find reasonable suspicion or extend the stop duration to investigate criminal activity when the driver was Black or Hispanic, public respondents were unaffected by race or gender considerations.
Originality/value – This study extends previous research on police discretion by comparing public and law enforcement perceptions of reasonable suspicion and stop extension decisions. The findings underscore the need for further exploration of the factors that contribute to discrepancies in perceptions and the potential implications for policy and practice.

Authors

• Ian Adams, University of South Carolina

• Kyle McLean, Clemson University

• Seth W. Stoughton, School of Law, University of South Carolina

• Justin Nix, University of Nebraska Omaha

• Geoffrey P. Alpert, University of South Carolina