This is very interesting stuff. I find this stuff absolutely fascinating.
The one thing that was raised with me in the break, in fairness to the officials, is these are not easy questions. I'm not pretending they are easy, because they are tough, and that's why I'm asking them. We're establishing the threshold of grounds to believe something that you suspect versus something that is probable, as in it's more probable than not in your eyes that something happened or you believe that it happened, as opposed to you think it could have happened, which I think is above the 50% when it's framed that way.
One of the questions raised to me in the break that I hadn't considered is this: Is this analysis of “reasonable grounds to suspect” versus “reasonable grounds to believe” animated or informed by the stage at which you—“you” being a peace officer in law enforcement—are in your investigation? In other words, the service demand threshold happens right at the outset. How does that impact “grounds to believe” versus “grounds to suspect”? Does that make sense? Does it being at the outset of the investigation have any impact?