The term I used was inarticulable, and if you are unable to articulate something (like to a judge), then that makes it inarticulable -- irrespective of how otherwise grounded it was.

So rationally, the cop's "spidey sense" is indeed evidence. The question I posed to you (and whoever's reading) was whether it counts as legal evidence. And it's my understanding that, no matter how good your spidey sense is, it does not become PC in a legal sense until it is articulable. As Thomas Moore said in A Man for All Seasons:

"The world must construe according to its wits; this court, according to the law."

There's no objective way to determine a base rate here. If you argue there is what methodology are you using?