If a cop is factually mistaken (but sincerely mistaken, not a liar) in his belief that X is true, and if X would typically constitute grounds for reasonable suspicion (were it to be true, which it isn’t), does the cop have reasonable suspicion?
A cop pulls a driver over because he thinks the driver turned right without signaling. The cop smells something strange, conducts a search, finds a crack pipe, and arrests the driver. Dash cam footage from the cop car is later reviewed, and shows that the driver did in fact use his turn signal properly when turning.
Did the mistaken cop have a "reasonable suspicion", and thus, grounds for pulling the car over? Is the crack pipe admissible as evidence?
A Spicier Example:
A cop thinks he hears a woman screaming from inside a house, repeating the phrase, “Help! They’re stabbing me!”. He calls for backup and has the house surrounded. Officers enter the house and find it completely empty, other than a small meth lab in the basement.
They find no people in the house, no amplification devices, and absolutely nothing capable of producing the sound of a woman screaming for help.
Witnesses who were standing next to the cop are interviewed, and all report that they heard nothing. Digital forensics experts later conclude that the officer’s body cam audio shows no traces of a woman screaming, and that there is no way a normal human ear placed within three feet of the camera would have heard anything other than silence.
There are fingerprints all over the equipment in the lab. They belong to the owner of the house.
Did the cop - provably mistaken in his sincerely held belief that there was a woman screaming for help - have reasonable suspicion that a crime was being committed, and thus, grounds for entering the house, admitting the meth lab into evidence, and arresting the owner?
Would the answer be different if the cop’s medical history was deemed admissible, and it turned out that he was a schizophrenic with a history of hearing voices?