Chapter 5 1. Answer the Chapter Review Questions 1, 5, 7, 10 and 11. 1. Compare and contrast reasonable suspicion and probable cause. 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. 5. Compare and contrast the Aguilar-Spinelli test with the totality-of-circumstances test in Illinois v. Gates. The Aguilar-Spinelli test states that a magistrate must be informed of the reasons to support the conclusion that such an informant is reliable and credible. The magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances relied on by the person providing the information which also went by the name of the “two-prong” test. The totality of circumstances cancelled out the “two-prong” test with the rules suggests that there is no single deciding factor, that one must consider all the facts, the context, and conclude from the whole picture whether there is probable cause, or whether an alleged detention is really a detention, or whether a citizen acted under
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
Hey, Professor Farris, according to the Shelby County Sheriff’s Department any search or seizure without a warrant must be justified and supported by clear, convincing and articulable facts. Officers must be prepared to justify any and all warrantless searches. A search without a warrant has consistently been found by the courts to be preemptively unreasonable, and therefore invalid, absent specific and articulable facts. If an experienced officer has the reasonable suspicions can articulate to a set of facts and circumstances that criminal activity may be afoot and make rational inferences. (Booker, 2015) The officer must have probable cause under any circumstances that would lead a reasonable man to believe that it is more likely than not a certain individual has committed or is committing an absolute crime. Officers may search vehicles when there is probable cause to believe that contraband or evidence of a crime is present in the vehicle. The vehicles need only to show inherent mobility rather than actual mobility. The search can be made immediately or delayed as long as probable cause existed even if the vehicle has been impounded and immobilized. An officer may search in any place that the object of the search may reasonably be found. This includes locked containers. Probable cause must be item specific. Probable cause for arrest is not probable cause for a search. Probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search has to be just as sufficient as probable cause to support
If there was no warrant for John's arrest this hearing will also determine if there is probable cause (Gerstein v. Pugh). Probable cause means that a reasonable ground exists for belief in the facts.
2. Investigation—sufficient evidence, known as probable cause, must be gathered to identify and support a legal arrest of a suspect.
Reasonable doubt is something that is derived from probable suspicion of a person or an event in different cases. People are forced to act in a certain way and their actions are justified if they have reasonable suspicion. It is really important that for reasonable suspicion that the person you are doubtful of shows some sort of suspicious behavior or attitude that justifies the doubt. A person who is doing something based on reasonable suspicion need to have some gathered facts that support his suspicion; otherwise it won’t really be something that can be qualified as reasonable suspicion.
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
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 or a warrant. Before 1968 the police could search a suspect only if they had
A detention is reasonable when the detaining officer can point to specific articulable facts that, under the totality of the circumstance, provide an objective basis for suspecting the particular person detained may be involved in criminal activity. (People v. Souza (1994) 9 Cal.4th 224.) As such, an investigatory stop based on mere curiosity, rumor or hunch is an unlawful seizure, even though the officer may be acting in good faith. (People v. Clair (1992) 2 Cal.4th 629.) Nonetheless, reasonable suspicion cannot be justified after the fact by evidence of criminal activity uncovered during the course of the detention. (People v. Gale (1973) 9 Cal.3d 788.) Moreover, mere proximity cannot be enough to create reasonable suspicion because proximity
The issue lies within the interpretation of what constituents reasonable grounds, as it is a subjective suspicion that can be interpreted differently by individual police officers and forces (Bowling and Phillips, 2007).
Reasonable Suspicion: is the legal standard by which a police officer has the right to briefly detain a suspect for investigatory purposes and frisk the outside of their clothing for weapons, but not drugs. While many factors contribute to a police officer’s level of authority in a given situation, the reasonable suspicion standard requires facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a suspect has, is, or will commit a crime.
A probable cause is established at the time of a preliminary hearing or preliminary examination. The hearing judge decides whether there is a combination of facts and circumstances that would encourage a reasonably intelligent person to believe that he or she should commit a crime. A probable cause must be examined from different angles in order to closely understand the mind of a person with non-criminal background. Those with a non-criminal background are exposed to committing crimes regardless of how clean their criminal record might look. Usually, the jury’s determination of a probable cause impacts the final decision of the case and how serious the law breaker’s punishment will be.
The two-pronged test was developed to “determine whether that information demonstrated probable cause” (Ingram p.172) where the first part of the test, “an informant’s veracity and reliability had to be determined prior to finding that the informant’s information supplied probable cause” (Ingram p.173) In this part of the test the police had to prove that the informant was a believable person” (Ingram p.173), such as having a history of “giving a reliable and truthful information to the police in the past, and might even implicated himself or herself in a crime just to prove to the police that he or she is telling the truth. The reliability of certain personalities as an informant such as the “local priest, mayor and another police officer
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.
Probable cause is a requirement which can be found in the Fourteenth Amendment that must usually be met before an arrest can be made, before being allowed to conduct a search, seize property, and to receive a warrant which is related to the alleged crime. Probable cause is considered a level of reasonable belief, probable cause must be based on facts and not an assumption. In civil court, a person can be sued if they have probable cause, and in criminal court, the defendant can be prosecuted or arrested if they also have probable cause. If the officer cannot prove probable cause, unfortunately, the evidence then becomes inadmissible, and the evidence will be thrown out.