Definitions

DEFINITIONS:

A) Reasonable Suspicion:

United States v Arvizu (151 L Ed 2d 740 (2002) U. S. Supreme Court

Criminal activity “may be afoot” if, based upon the “totality of circumstances,” the detaining officer has a “particularized and objective basis” for suspected legal wrongdoing. This process allows officers to draw on their own experiences and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to the officers that might well exclude an untrained person.

In developing this basis of criminal activity, the officer may use factors and although each of these factors alone is susceptible to innocent explanation, and some factors are more probative then others, taken together, they suffice to form a particularized and objective basis for a detention.

B) Probable Cause:

1) Search Warrant:

Illinois v Gates (462 U. S. 213 (1983) U. S. Supreme Court

Probable cause for a search warrant exists when under the totality of circumstances there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

Texas v Brown (460 U.S. 730 (1983) U.S. Supreme Court

“Probable cause” for search is flexible, common-sense standard, merely requiring that facts available to officer would warrant man of reasonable caution in belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of crime.

It does not demand any showing that such belief be correct or more likely true than false, a practical, nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is involved being all that is required, and it is not necessary that officer be possessed of near certainty as to seizable nature of items.

2) Arrest:

United States v Garza (980 F. 2d 546 (1992) Ninth Circuit

Probable cause exists when under the totality of circumstances known to the arresting officer, a prudent person would have concluded that there was a fair probability that the defendant had committed a crime.

Law enforcement officers may draw upon their experience in determining the existence of probable cause. Thus, seemingly innocent conduct may provide the basis for probable cause when viewed in light of all of the information known at the time of the arrest.

The arresting officer need not have personal knowledge of the facts sufficient to constitute probable cause. Probable cause may be based on the collective knowledge of all of the officers involved in the investigation and all of the reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom.

Maryland v Pringle (124 S. Ct. 795 (2003) U.S. Supreme Court

Police officer had probable cause to believe that defendant, who was the front seat passenger in a vehicle, committed the crime of possession of cocaine, either solely or jointly with the other passengers of the vehicle. The defendant was one of three men riding in a vehicle at 3:16a.m., $763 of rolled-up cash was found in the glove compartment directly in front of the defendant, five plastic baggies of cocaine were behind the backseat armrest and accessible to all three vehicle occupants, and upon questioning, the three men failed to offer any information with respect to the ownership of the cocaine or money.

The probable cause standard is a practical, non-technical conception that deals with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.

To determine whether an officer had probable cause to arrest an individual, a court will examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of a reasonable police officer, amount to probable cause.

Return to Narcotic Legal Index

Return to the Home Page

Webmaster