A Interpretação Judicial da Fundada Suspeita e Seus Impactos na Atividade Ostensiva da Polícia Militar do Amazonas

Abstract

Reasonable suspicion constitutes an essential legal requirement for police stops and personal searches without a judicial warrant, acting as a mediating element between ostensive policing and the protection of fundamental rights. However, the lack of an objective legal definition of this institute in the Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure has transferred to the Judiciary the task of delineating its contours, particularly through the jurisprudence of the Federal Supreme Court and the Superior Court of Justice. This article critically analyzes the impacts of the judicial interpretation of reasonable suspicion on the ostensive activity of the Military Police of Amazonas, focusing on the validity of evidence, legal certainty for police officers, and institutional legitimacy. The research adopts a qualitative and applied approach, using a dogmatic-legal method combined with exploratory empirical jurisprudential analysis of decisions issued by the Court of Justice of Amazonas. The findings indicate that judicial interpretation has redefined the decision-making standard of police stops, imposing objective justification requirements that challenge ostensive policing practices in territorially complex contexts such as the Amazon region. The study concludes that the internalization of jurisprudential standards requires structured institutional responses to ensure both public security effectiveness and democratic legitimacy of police action.