The principal does since it is based on Heien v. North Carolina, 135 S. Ct. 530, 540 (2014) a USSC decision that does apply to your state.
The phrase, "reasonable suspicion" hinges on what the word, "reasonable" means. In legal discourse, it has always meant "having a reason". It has never meant, "having a good and valid reason", just "having a reason". It does have to be a reason held in good faith, and there's an "objective test" for that. It can't be the result of fantasy, hallucinations, or messages from Elvis from beyond the grave. It's the same word as is used in describing the mental state of a person involved in a defensive shooting, and means the same thing: "If you have a good faith,
reasonably held belief, based on objective fact..."; for example, an off-duty cop shot an unarmed homeless guy this morning in Linthicum, Md. (good thing Md. gun control didn't apply to the cop). Turns out the homeless guy came up to the cop brandishing a toy gun in the darkness, and demanded that the cop turn over his wallet. The cop had a reasonably held, good faith belief, based on objective fact that the guy was a robber having the present means and willingness to kill. He had no idea the guy was actually unarmed. He had a reason. It was factually wrong, but so what?
In this present case, I'd argue that the cop was guilty of a crime, but not because his legal advice was wrong, but that he's giving out legal advice without being licensed to do so.