The term “Reasonable suspicion” sets some kind of “zone of indistinction” within the law for supposedly delineating the legal standard procedures of arrest and warrants. As it is well known, “reasonable suspicion” has no binding force compared to “probable cause” which gives an officer or agent clear grounds to keep someone in custody, to conduct any type of check, or to secure a warrant. Although in training material of police and in legal scripture it is coded that for reasonable suspicion there should be “specific and articulable facts”, we know the definition and content of these specific and articulable facts is ambiguous and may change. Especially in the neo-liberal era it is almost impossible to notice how “reasonable suspicion” is utilized against subjects considered “dangerous” in Turkey. These subjects may be Kurdish youth, members of left-wing circles, and/or unexpectedly protesters of any kind. Just the suspicion of a protest has made the arbitrary arrests and/or harassment of citizens into norm. The one definite aim of this is to make people obedient and let them conceive the clear and present dangers of protesting when they stand up for better life conditions and freedom. This paper will first analyze the theoretical grounds of “reasonable suspicion” in the Turkish case at a legal and theoretical level by relating it to neoliberal securitization discourse. Second, it will use concrete examples such as lynch attempts, profuse use of tear gas and severe beatings in peaceful protests, harassment of “unwanted” minorities in urban sprawl, among others. And third, it will show how the legitimization of these practices under the term of “reasonable suspicion” to suppress the scars of the repressed citizen.