Difference Between Reasonable Suspicion And Reasonable Doubt

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

The criminal justice system consists of models and theories that often contradict one another. Of these models are the crime control model, the due process, model, the consensus model and the conflict model. In this paper these models are evaluated and defined, as well as each entity in the criminal justice systems role within each model. Policing, corrections and the court system all subscribe to each model in some way and in a hurried manner in cases that dictate such a response. As described by Erik Luna in the Models of Criminal Procedure, the following statement summarizes the aforementioned most appropriately.

Over time, technology has impacted the police and other law enforcement agencies with new devices for gathering evidence. These new tools have caused constitutional questions to surface. One particular case in Oregon of an individual (DLK) aroused such question. DLK was suspected of growing marijuana inside of his home. Agents used a thermal imager to scan DLK’s residence form the outside. The results indicated heat, just like the kind that is generated by special lights used for growing marijuana indoors. Constructed by the scan, a judge issued a search warrant. A warrant – a legal paper authorizing a search – cannot be issued unless there is

The standard for a legal arrest is probable cause. For an officer to make an arrest, he or she must have more than a mere hunch yet less than actual knowledge that the arrestee committed the crime (Peak, 2009). Law enforcement officers need to make certain they understand probable cause is different than reasonable suspicion. A good example of a reasonable suspicion encounter is Terry V. Ohio, where an officer who had 39 years of experience in law enforcement observed two men standing on a street corner. It appeared based on the officer’s experience the two men were casing a store because they both were walking up and down the street peering into the store windows, and then they would return to the corner to conference. While the officer

The criminal justice system in the United States has traditionally operated under two fundamentally different theories. One theory is the Crime Control Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that criminals should be aggressively pursued and crimes aggressively punished. The other theory is the Due Process Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that the rights of the accused need to be carefully protected in any criminal justice investigation. (Levy, 1999)

When it comes to the criminal justice process of the United States we should look at the law enforcement agencies as the most dynamic component of the organization. The organization is required to guarantee safety; the USA Patriot Act has amplified the effectiveness of the criminal justice process by authorizing law enforcement additional tools for the job. The USA Patriot Act has also increased the abilities of other essential mechanisms in the criminal justice process by making their processes easier to execute. If we compare the changes we can use the example of discretion. Discretion allows members in the law enforcement area to act freely to decide what should be done in any given situation.

It is true that reasonable suspicion is not probable cause to elicit some sort of a reaction for something or for someone but

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).

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

Stop & Frisk- if the police officer has reasonable suspicion that a criminal act took place or is about take place he can search the suspect. If the police officer believes they are arm and dangerous. It is a bit less serious than probable cause. An example can be Johnny is walking down the street with a set of pliers in his

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.

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.

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.

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.