Probable Cause

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

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.

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 following exceptions do not require probable cause: stop and frisk, incident to arrest, consent, inventory and administrative searches. The most common exception patrol officers encounter in the field is the stop and frisk also commonly known as

Fourth, the facts that are alleged to establish probable cause must “supported by Oath or affirmation” (Hall, 2016.) In a

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 stop and frisk policy came about many years ago. The stop and frisk is used for protection for the officer or officers. An officer can stop a suspect and frisk him/her for weapons, contraband or any other items if the officer feels any other suspicion. A Stop and Frisk do not require a warrant. This practice is very common now days, but similar procedures to stop and frisk policy started in the 1980s. According to Clark (2015), the earliest origins of stop and frisk were used in 1994 by Street Crime Unit to prevent the carrying of illegal guns in well-known hot spots and areas with high crime rates. The crime rates decreased over time, but it caused another issue in the communities.

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

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.

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).