CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE

Two commonly confused concepts in criminal law are reasonable suspicion and probable cause.

Define and evaluate both of these significant legal terms, and utilize pertinent U.S. Supreme Court opinions to justify your answers.

Finally, address what happens to a criminal case when an officer does not possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

THIS ASSIGNMENT IS COMPLETED ABOVE; YOUR NEXT ASSIGNMENT IS TO:

Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts.

EACH STUDENT FEEDBACK MUST BE 200 WORDS EACH (TOTAL OF 2 STUDENTS FEEDBACKS).

ANY OUTSIDE SOURCES MUST BE PROPERLY CITED IN APA FORM… Remember; do not merely agree with your classmates without additional information. A substantive response advances the discussion in a meaningful way; merely agreeing with your classmates is not a substantive response….

First Student Response from Luis Tafoya

Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause

Reasonable suspicion is a lesser level of suspicion needed by officers to conduct a frisk/pat down of an individual they feel may be involved in criminal activity. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court offered an opinion that justified reasonable suspicion for a “stop and frisk” which led to a seven step procedure that must be applied to all “stop and frisk” situations.

1. Reasonable suspicion

2. Identify as police officer

3. Stop

4. General inquiry

5. If fear is not dispelled

6. Frisk (pat down) for weapons

7. If weapon found, then search (Wright, R., 2013)

Probable cause is derived from the facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been committed and a particular person committed it (Wright, R., 2013). This is true about probable cause in general and as is it refers to an arrest. Our assigned textbook does make the distinction between the aforementioned and probable cause as it relates to a search, noting the specific facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that evidence is in a particular place (Wright, R., 2013).

In the Ornelas V. United States case, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stated “the principle details in such a review should be an analysis of events leading up to the search and the objective review of the search” in regard to whether probable cause or reasonable suspicion was used in the course of an enforcement action (OYES, 2014). In the event that a criminal case is presented where an officer did not possess reasonable suspicion or probable cause leading up to the arrest of the subject, the fruits of that investigation would not be admissible into court proceedings, could be suppressed, and charges ultimately dropped against the defendant.

References:

Wright, R. (2013). Introduction to Criminal Law and Procedure; Published by Bridgepoint Education, Inc., 13500 Evening Creek Drive North, Suite 600, San Diego, CA 92128.

OYEZ; Ornelas v. United States viewed on 5/7/14 at:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1995/1995_95_5257

Second Response from Kimberly Linker

The lack of reasonable suspicion where an arresting officer uses such judgment in determining guilt, a case is deemed dismissed for the officer failing to identify him or herself as an officer of the law under Wilson v Arkansas,514 US 927 (1995),"This Comment addresses whether an arrest is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when the officers fail to identify themselves as police when conducting the arrest."(Crapko, 2010)

Regarding the issue of probable cause, it is say that this element of law has many issues and can be conceived as one stemming from a warrantless search such as a stop and frisk in the belief a crime has or about to occur giving way for evidence to be present substantiating an arrest. However, "significantly, both circuits emphasized that the police did not warn passengers that they had a right to refuse consent to search, and this factor weighed heavily in the courts' decisions" (Callahan, 2004)

Probable cause in the sense of a conviction based on mere speculation can be upheld in a court of law regardless of an officer having such once reasonable suspicion has warranted an initial investigation of criminal activity. I concur with the statement and both concepts having some difficulty interpreting but as I come to read and understand, I find that reasonable suspicion is based on the thought of someone being up to mischievous or criminal actions as their demeanor warrants such. "The officer must also be able to clearly articulate the facts and circumstances that arouse the reasonable suspicion. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),and Detective McFadden's case, he could detail the repeated trips down the street that indicated the men were casing the store in question" (Wright, 2013)

References:

Callahan, D. J. (2004). A LAW STUDENT IN THE SUPREME COURT: UNITED STATES V. DRAYTON AND THE FUTURE OF CONSENT SEARCH ANALYSIS. The William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 13(2), 567-616. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/201630900?accountid=32521

Crapko, J. A. (2010). An argument for requiring officer identification. The University of Chicago Law Review, 77(4), 1771-1800. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/858020682?accountid=32521

Wright, R. (2013). Introduction to criminal law and procedure. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.