What constitutes probable cause?

[Erik]

REASONABLE SUSPICIOUON is a legal standard in United States law that a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants.

Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and frisked by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure.

In Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada the court further established that a state may require, by law, that a person identify himself or herself to an officer during a stop. An arrest is not permitted based on reasonable suspicion; probable cause is required for an arrest. Further, a person is not required to answer any other questions during a Terry stop, and the detention must be brief.

 

[Erik]

SCHOOLS

New Jersey v. T. L. O. set the precedent that probable cause is not necessary to search a student; reasonable suspicion is enough to search a student's belongings. Overly intrusive searches, like a body cavity search, require probable cause.

 

[Erik]

Deleted. TMI.

 

[Erik]

Too much info in those for some, I realize, but hey, they're your rights and you should know. There is a ton of information to draw from, for those interested in learning more. It is just a web search away...

 

[ilbob]

even having a few hundred dollars cash these days can lead to civil forfeiture of your cash, and your vehicle with no recourse (at least none that is meaningful).

-ilbob

Are you speaking from experience? Are you sure there were not some other facts contributing to that seizure? IF not then you have a claim for illegal seizure. I routinely return from the nearby town where my bank is located with thousands of dollars for payroll. I cannot imagine loosing my car and the cash on the basis you describe.

There have been MANY cases where especially cash has been confiscated where there was no reason for it other than the cop said he thought it was drug money.

Once it is confiscated, your chances of getting it back are close to zero because you primary appeal route is through the agency that took it in the first place.

Its a gross violation of both the 4th and 5th amendment, but thats the way things are these days.

 

[jaholder1971]

You would be surprised at the number of people who are in jail because they gave permission for a search of their motor vehicle or home.

I knew one deputy sheriff who everyone thought was a wizard at making drug busts. All he did was ask drunks if he would look in their pockets. Invariably they said yes, even though they had illegal drugs in their pockets.

Actually, I'd say that these people are in jail because:

1. They were carrying something illegal, and

2. they were stupid!!!

I have a bumper sticker around here that pretty much sum it up:

STUPIDITY SHOULD BE PAINFUL