What’s the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?

Definition of Probable Cause

Probable cause refers to the belief held by a reasonable person that a crime is currently being committed, has already been committed, or is likely to be committed in the near future.

Legal Repercussions of Probable Cause – Probable cause serves as the necessary foundation for obtaining a search or arrest warrant and empowers a police officer to make an arrest if a crime is witnessed in progress.

Definition of Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the United States Supreme Court as “the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely.”

Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an “unarticulated hunch.” It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion.

Reasonable suspicion means that any reasonable person would suspect that a crime was in the process of being committed, had been committed or was going to be committed very soon.

Legal Repercussions of Reasonable Suspicion – When an officer has reasonable suspicion in a given situation, they are permitted to briefly detain or frisk the suspect.

However, reasonable suspicion alone does not authorize a full search of a person or their vehicle unless the individual is on school property.

It is important to note that reasonable suspicion does not provide sufficient grounds for an arrest or for obtaining a search warrant.

The Difference Between Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion

It is common for individuals to confuse the terms probable cause and reasonable suspicion, yet each has distinct implications that affect a person’s rights, the appropriate law enforcement procedures, and the overall outcome of an encounter with police.

Reasonable suspicion serves as a preliminary step prior to establishing probable cause; it indicates that there is a belief a crime may have occurred. This situation transitions into probable cause when the evidence suggests that a crime has most likely taken place.

Stop and Frisk

In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the court recognized that a limited stop and frisk of an individual could be conducted without a warrant based on less than probable cause.

The stop must be based on a reasonable, individualized suspicion based on articulable facts, and the frisk is limited to a pat-down for weapons.

An anonymous tip that a person is carrying a gun is not, by itself, sufficient to justify a stop and frisk. Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000).

Florida v. Bostick 501 U.S. 429, 437 (1991) – A person’s refusal to cooperate is not sufficient for reasonable suspicion.

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 124-25 (2000). – A person’s flight in a high crime area after seeing police was sufficient for reasonable suspicion to stop and frisk.

The same requirement of founded suspicion for a “person” stop applies to stops of individual vehicles.

United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002). The scope of the “frisk” for weapons during a vehicle stop may include areas of the vehicle in which a weapon may be placed or hidden.

Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983). The police may order passengers and the driver out of or into the vehicle pending completion of the stop.

Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408 (1997). The passengers may not be detained longer than it takes the driver to receive his citation. Once the driver is ready to leave, the passengers must be permitted to go as well.

During a stop for traffic violations, the officers need not independently have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot to justify frisking passengers, but they must have reason to believe the passengers are armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S Court. 781, 784 (2009).

Recent

Other Articles

Exceptions to your 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure (more to come).

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards citizens by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and generally mandates the necessity of a warrant for such intrusions.

However, there are specific contexts where warrant requirements are relaxed or not applicable. Here are six notable exceptions:

Border Searches

At U.S. borders and international points of entry, law enforcement officials have broad authority to conduct searches without a warrant. This includes searching individuals, vehicles, and luggage. The rationale is that the government has a sovereign interest in protecting its borders and regulating who and what enters the country. These searches are considered reasonable under the Fourth Amendment due to the national security interests at stake.

Drug Testing

Drug testing by government employers, schools, or other institutions can occur without a warrant or individualized suspicion in certain circumstances. For example, random drug testing of student-athletes or employees in safety-sensitive positions is allowed. The Supreme Court has upheld such practices, balancing the government’s interest in safety and public welfare against individual privacy rights.

National Security

In matters of national security, the government can conduct searches without a warrant under specific conditions, such as through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). These searches are typically related to monitoring foreign spies, terrorists, or other national security threats. The courts have generally granted the government greater leeway in these cases, recognizing the unique and urgent nature of national security concerns.

School Searches

School officials have the authority to search students and their belongings without a warrant, provided they have reasonable suspicion that the student has violated a school rule or law. The standard for these searches is lower than in other contexts because schools are responsible for maintaining a safe and orderly environment conducive to education.

Searches of Prisoners, Parolees, and Probationers

Individuals owned by the criminal justice system, such as prisoners, parolees, and probationers, have a reduced expectation of privacy. Warrantless searches of these individuals and their property are permitted under the terms of their incarceration, parole, or probation. These searches are justified by the government’s interest in maintaining security and ensuring compliance with the terms of their release.

Workplace Searches

Government employers can conduct warrantless searches of employees’ workspaces, particularly if there is a reasonable suspicion of work-related misconduct or if the search is part of a general policy to ensure workplace efficiency and security. The expectation of privacy in a government workplace is lower, especially when the area searched is related to work rather than personal activities.

These exceptions illustrate the balance between individual rights and the government’s need to ensure safety, security, and efficiency in specific contexts where the warrant requirement is not strictly enforced.

Are there more? Yes.

Do you know what to do if you are pulled over by a police officer?

Below is some information that can help to make a traffic stop less stressful and safer for everyone.

• First, when you notice emergency lights behind you, pull over to the right side of the road as soon as it’s safe to do so. Keep calm and try to remain still. Stay in your vehicle, open the driver’s side window and keep your hands in sight on the steering wheel.
• When the officer asks, provide your driver’s license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. At this point in the traffic stop, the officer should tell you why you were stopped. If he or she doesn’t, it’s okay to inquire about the reason for the stop once you have provided your driver’s license, vehicle registration and proof of insurance. When addressing the officer, speak with the same level of respect you expect from him or her.
• If the officer issues you a citation, don’t argue the reason for it during the traffic stop. The best and most appropriate place to dispute a citation is in court.
• When the officer tells you it’s okay to leave, make sure your seat belt is buckled and that it’s safe to enter the roadway before pulling out. As you get back on the road, follow all traffic laws, including using your turn signal. The officer will likely remain on the side of the road, with lights activated, until you have safely re-entered traffic.

If you feel the officer acted inappropriately or didn’t treat you fairly, it’s okay to follow up with a phone call to his or her supervisor.

Source: Michigan Government

Recent

Other Articles