Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk (by feeling something that could be a weapon or contraband, for example), they can then search you. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.
I have an upcoming contravention hearing about the child being withheld from myself.
reasonable excuse is obviously very vague, but what would be a general guide for the level of proof the other party have to prove too meet the minimum of such.
The issue in particular in question here is the...
Just wanted to know that if the employer requires all teachers to sign a staff code of conduct, can some staff opt out of it or decline to sign?
What are the rights of the employer and the employee in this regards?