Kristen Fortin Kaplan University CJ:140 Introduction to Constitutional Law Professor Robert Winters February 22, 2014 Abstract: Pertaining to the differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion within law enforcement can determine the difference between a legal search and seizure and police officers obtaining evidence in an illegal manner. Officers need to handle each situation when probable cause and reasonable suspicion is involved. Determining what is reasonable and what is not takes great skill, perseverance, comprehension of the law, and an innate intuitiveness on the part of the officer. The Fourth Amendment clearly defines the exceptions to the warrant requirement. …show more content…
Thus, this leaves this determination up to the courts to decide case by case. Probable cause quantitates specific levels of suspicion and is based on facts and prudent belief of guilt, thus allowing a law enforcement officer to perform a warrantless search. Probable cause is more substantial than reasonable suspicion pertaining to the justification for an investigative detention. (Devallis Rutledge, 2010). Reasonable Suspicion: Reasonable suspicion occurs when an equitable law enforcement officer possessing a belief or intuition of the possibility of a crime being committed, stops an alleged suspect, conducts a brief investigation and “pats” them down if it is believed the detainee possess a weapon. Reasonable suspicion became relevant in 1968, during the paramount case of Terry v. Ohio. An officer observed several people, Terry included, behaving in a suspicious manner in front of a store giving the officer reasonable suspicion to confront the suspects and conduct a brief pat down, whereas it was found that Terry had in his possession a firearm. This made the officer’s reasonable suspicion plausible, ruled by the Supreme Court, (Terry v. Ohio, 1968). Thus, this lead reasonable suspicion to probable cause to the arrest of Terry and his fellow accomplices. Reasonableness: The Fourth Amendment describes “the reasonableness clause” as “The right of the
Reasonable suspicion is different from probable cause as reasonable suspicion allows an officer to temporarily detain a person if the officer suspects the person of committing a crime, previously committed a crime, or is about to commit a crime. This will allow the officer the time to conduct an investigation that may allow him/her to find the facts that are required to arrest per probable cause. Therefore, reasonable suspicion is thought of to be a hunch
When evidence is found initially during or a s consequence of an illegal search or
Police officers use search and seizure as a tool to ensure their safety, gather evidence, and arrest suspects. In police training, a search is defined as an examination of a hidden place, i.e. a person or their property, whose purpose is to find contraband (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). A seizure is defined as the capture or arrest of a person or the confiscation of property (DOCJT, 2014, p. 10). Depending on the individual situation, a warrant may or may not be required to conduct searches and seizures. The exclusionary rule, which states that illegally seized evidence is inadmissible in court, has guided the definition of search and seizure, specifically as it pertains
The Fourth amendment of the bill of rights prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures any warrant to be judicially sanction and to support to probable cause.
Second, there must be probable cause to believe that the items sought are connected to criminal activity (Hall, 2016.) When a search warrant is granted then there needs to be probable cause that is connected to the criminal act in which we are able to find more evidence to prosecute the criminal.
It is true that reasonable suspicion is not probable cause to elicit some sort of a reaction for something or for someone but
This comprises of indirect evidence which aids in detection of crime while not fully proving it. The probable cause sources are enough in some cases while for others further information or evidence needs to be provided. If the judge wants to issue search warrants, then the probable cause must highlight that the person got involved in criminal activity and the crime has taken place.
Probable cause is defined as a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed, that evidence is at the place being sear5ched or on the person being searched, or that a specific person is believed to have committed, is committing, or will commit a certain crime. Law enforcement cannot just go to a judge and say they have probable cause for a warrant. To obtain a warrant law enforcement needs something to substantiate their belief. The standard for probable cause to be met is for any reasonable person to believe based on the evidence or observations presented that indeed either a suspect has or is engaging in criminal activity, or that evidence exists at a certain location. Not all searches require probable cause to be established. The exception to the probable cause is reasonable suspicion. An example of this is a customs search. A custom search requires no warrant or probable cause be presented. But if a custom agent is going to detain a traveler for an extended
probable cause or a warrant. Before 1968 the police could search a suspect only if they had
The right to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is associated with two types of warrants:
Officer had probable cause to affect a traffic stop after he observed defendant following too closely. Defendant's and passenger's behavior after stop provided reasonable suspicion to expand the detention, and a positive drug dog sniff provided basis for search of vehicle.
Reasonable suspicion is a reasonable likelihood that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. It is a reasonable belief based on facts or circumstances and is informed by a police officer’s training and experience. Reasonable suspicion is seen as more than a guess or hunch but is less than probable cause. Probable cause is the logical belief, supported by facts and circumstances, which a crime has been, is being, or will be committed. The difference between the two are the fact that probable cause has evidence or is fact based whereas reasonable suspicion is a hunch.
Meeting the standard of probable cause requires a demonstration to the judge or magistrate that a crime has occurred, or is occurring and that evidence relative to that crime will be found at a particular location. The investigator must swear, under oath, that the information establishing a probable cause is true to the best of is or her knowledge But in certain cases getting a warrant might take time so based on reasonable suspicion police can go ahead and still conduct the search. The police can conduct searches using numerous ways such as first-hand information if someone tells them you have something your not suppose to based on that information they can go ahead and conduct a search.
According to Criminal Law and Procedure, probable cause is the least amount of evidence that is necessary to determine criminality in regards to a search, arrest, or seizure to be proper under the Fourth Amendment (Hall, 2015). Every case differs in how probable cause is articulated as well as the basics of the case in terms of who, what, when, where, how, and why. " In all situations, it is more than mere suspicion and less than standard required to prove a defendant guilty at trial (beyond a reasonable doubt)", (Hall, 2015, p. 399). Furthermore, probable cause is simply the facts of a case that represents criminality and presented by the law enforcement officer to a judge or magistrate, to solidify their case in ascertaining an arrest warrant
They focus if the police really did their job in how they obtain the evidence. Probable cause has to be shown when obtaining evidence and during the investigation. The defendant's rights are very much protected and everything is looked at carefully. Sometimes when the due process is invoked or not done properly the charges of the defendant could be dropped.