How does "probable cause" differ from "reasonable suspicion"?

Probable cause is defined as the standard of evidence that law enforcement must meet before making an arrest, conducting a search, or receiving a warrant. It requires that there are sufficient facts and circumstances to convince a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. This standard ensures that law enforcement actions are grounded in objective facts rather than mere conjecture or hunches.

In this context, the correct choice emphasizes that probable cause is justified by sufficient facts that warrant an arrest. This is distinct from reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard requiring only a belief that a crime may be happening based on specific and articulable facts. Reasonable suspicion allows officers to stop and briefly detain a person but does not extend to arresting them, which requires that higher standard of probable cause.

The other options misinterpret the nature of probable cause. Intuition alone does not meet legal standards, and terms like "lower standard of proof" and determining factors based on an officer's mood do not reflect the objective basis required for establishing probable cause in law enforcement.