The Case Of Brinegar V. United States

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

e term reasonable, when used to justify the use of force, is sometimes di cult to interpret. A general de ni- tion of reasonable in relation to the use of force is any ac- tion that a reasonable and prudent person would believe to be necessary to complete the required task. According to most experienced o cers, reasonableness can be eas- ily determined. However, in a civil or criminal case, th o cer is not the one that has to determine if the force was reasonable, but rather, the citizens si ing on the jury will be tasked with determining the reasonableness of the force used by the o cer. Police o cers have to remem- ber that the public perception of what is reasonable is extremely important.

In order to obtain a search warrant, the police must show probable cause that a crime was committed and that evidence of that crime is likely to exist at the specified location. The police typically present their application for a search warrant to a neutral

Probable Cause is a standard that means 'more likely than not.' It is the logical belief, supported by facts and circumstances, that a particular person has committed a

“A Reasonable Apprehension”: The victim should have had a reasonable belief that he or she was about to be harmed by the defendant.

To be arrested means to be taken into custody by a legal authority. When a person is arrested there are certain rules and regulations that a police officer must follow and/or enforce. There are only two ways to get arrested: probable cause and an arrest warrant. Probable cause is a reasonable belief that someone has commited a crime by an officer. Probable cause has to be based on facts, a person can't just get arrested just because an officer has a hinch. An example of probable cause is if let's say an officer responds to an alarm at a store and the person is hiding in the back of the store and has blood running down his arm, the officer then would have a probable cause to arrest person. If you are ever stopped by the police you may be frisked

Reasonable suspicion results in the combination of specific facts that can be articulated to a court, each of which is by itself harmless. It depends on the “totality of the circumstances.” With the acknowledgement of the vehicle matching the suspected car, the traffic stop turned into a detention. During a detention, a pat-down is allowed if there is a suspected weapon involved. It is also known that a warrant is not needed to conduct a pat-down in a Terry stop. A Terry stop is described as briefly detaining a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous.” With the acknowledgement Officer Smith has of the suspected car, asking the driver to step out of the vehicle for a brief pat-down; justifies her wanting to make sure that she and her surroundings are safe. In Pennsylvania v. Mimms, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that statistics indicated that 30 percent of

One must have probable cause to arrest which shows a correlation between an individual and a specific crime.

Upon looking at the terms of reasonable suspicion and probable cause, one will believe that they both mean the same thing but stated in two entirely different ways. Reasonable suspicion is the rational conjecture that a crime has been, will be or is being performed based on the details and situations presented along with the officer’s knowledge and familiarity. Probable cause is supported by facts and circumstance along the same lines of reasonable suspicion except that it includes concrete evidence that is able to support the crime. Reasonable suspicion is when it looks as though a crime has been performed and is used as validation for investigating suspicious behaviors. These are just two terms that are meant to be deciphered by the public

In 1986, six of the 50 states passed laws requiring arrest when there is enough probable cause. For example if the police show up to a domestic violence call and the victim doesn’t want to press charges, in some cases law enforcement was not required to make an arrest simply because they were called into in or even if the victim displays signs of abuse. Now, because of that legislation law enforcement is required by law to make an arrest of the perpetrator if the victim displays bruising and injuries even if the victim denies any harm have been done. All a cop needs to make an arrest is probable cause, as we all know probable cause is easier to prove than Proof beyond a reasonable doubt that can be left to the courts to decide. (Meadows, 2013).

Most of us kind of understand what probable cause is and reasonable suspicion means, but for some of us we do not know, thereby this learner will explain the two. An example of what probable cause is: That is like when a LEO is about to pull you over, they must decide if they have a reason to do this before they make the stop. Basically, they need some form of facts to believe that the individual has broken the law.

Next, we have Reasonable suspicion which means that a LEO must have “sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand, and this level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside” (“Probable Cause and”, n.d., para. 8).

Most of us have seen things that officers or other Law agency have done to other individual and have stated that it was either an unreasonable search and seizure of items that was found on or in the individuals’ car, house, etc., but why would they consider it unreasonable? This usually ends up being a problem for individuals who do not understand the law or how it applies to certain situations.

The use of the expression “reason to believe” shows that the belief that the applicant may be so arrested must be founded on reasonable grounds. Mere ‘fear’ is not ‘belief’ for which reason it is not enough for the applicant to show that he has some sort of a vague apprehension that someone is going to make an accusation against him, in pursuance of which he may be arrested. The grounds on which the belief of the applicant is based that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence must be capable of being examined by the court objectively because it is then alone that the court can determine whether the applicant has reason to believe that he may be so arrested. The section cannot be invoked on the basis of vague and general allegations

Reasonable Suspicion: is a law that officers and government officials need concrete information to question or search an individual.