Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California

What are the definitions for each and where can these these found?

What class are you taking and why?

Quote:

---

Quoting 525601minutes

---

What class are you taking and why?

---

Adjudication. I've read many slightly different defintions in text books and online and frankly I don't see that clear a difference when it comes to the language of the different standards.

Quote:

---

Quoting 525601minutes

---

What class are you taking and why?

---

I agree. Why have someone else do your homework for you.

The Statutes of all 50 States reference the same imaginary person. This imaginary person is the reasonable person. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry (this includes you) is measured up against this imaginary reasonable person. FYI reasonable suspicion precedes probable cause.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures

The flip side of this is that there are indeed reasonable searches and reasonable seizures.

An officers affidavit usually begins "I have reason to believe and do believe" or words to that effect.

Example: An officer sees a vehicle leaving a known drug neighborhood at 01:30 a.m. The officer stops the vehicle. The officer did not have probable cause for the stop but he did have reasonable suspicion.

What reasonable suspicion would the imaginary reasonable person have in seeing a vehicle leave a known drug neighborhood at 01:30 a.m.? Legally an officer can act on reasonable suspicion alone but to error on the side caution the officer usually waits for probable cause to make an arrest. This is not a legal requirement.

Pursuant to Amendment IV, probable cause can not stand on its own merits. Probable cause must be supported by oath or affirmation. Therefore reasonable suspicion is the structural foundation and probable cause is built and supported on top of that foundation.

Quote:

---

Quoting Stevo

---

What reasonable suspicion would the imaginary reasonable person have in seeing a vehicle leave a known drug neighborhood at 01:30 a.m.? Legally an officer can act on reasonable suspicion alone but to error on the side caution the officer usually waits for probable cause to make an arrest. This is not a legal requirement.

---

Are you saying PC is not a requirement to effect an arrest? If you are, you are, respectfully, incorrect.

Quote:

---

Pursuant to Amendment IV, probable cause can not stand on its own merits. Probable cause must be supported by oath or affirmation. Therefore reasonable suspicion is the structural foundation and probable cause is built and supported on top of that foundation.

---

Are you talking about PC for a search warrant or an arrest?

anberlin32, are you talking about reasonable suspicion regarding a traffic stop or Terry stop, OR an arrest? The SC has associated "Reasonable Cause" with "Probable Cause", but don't let that confuse you with Reasonable suspicion that a crime may be afoot, a Terry stop. RS is a slightly lesser standard than PC.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Are you saying PC is not a requirement to effect an arrest? If you are, you are, respectfully, incorrect.

---

Reasonable suspicion is all that is required to effect an arrest. Statutes dictate that an arrested person is to be brought before the nearest committing Magistrate Immediately, Without Delay, and with Due Diligence for a probable cause hearing. The 48 hour stipulation does not void or nullify the the clear language of the Law by giving the arresting officer still more time yet to drag his feet. Only the committing Magistrate has the keys to the jail. The committing Magistrate listens to both sides of the story and the committing Magistrate finds if probable cause exists or not. This is black letter Law on the books. Officers do not comply with Statutory Law. Officers follow policy while falsely believing that policy supersedes Law when they take arrested persons directly to jail. By Law, probable cause is found by the Magistrate and not by the arresting officer.

Example: 01:30 a.m. An officer finds a man meandering around in the darkness behind a building. The officer also notes that a window has been broken in the back of the building. The officers reasonable suspicion is that this man broke that window. Based upon this reasonable suspicion the officer makes a reasonable search and a reasonable seizure of the man. The arresting officer then takes the arrested person immediately, without delay, and with due diligence before a committing Magistrate and explains himself for making the arrest. The arrested person also explains himself before the committing Magistrate as to why he was behind the building, in the dark, at 01:30 a.m. Based upon the arresting officers reasonable suspicion (Oath or affirmation) the committing Magistrate finds if probable cause exists (not innocence or guilt) and either releases the arrested person or has him committed to jail.

As practiced today, police policy supersedes black letter Law and it is the officers who have the keys to the jail and it is the officers who find probable cause and it is the officers who commit arrested persons to jail. Magistrates have been taken out of the loop and have become rubber stamping clerks.

I respectfully disagree with you that probable cause is a requirement to effect an arrest pursuant to black letter Law. I must agree with you that probable cause is a requirement to effect an arrest pursuant to practiced policy. This is a direct result of arresting officers being committing officials instead of Magistrates pursuant to policy.

Quote:

---

Quoting Stevo

---

Pursuant to Amendment IV, probable cause can not stand on its own merits. Probable cause must be supported by oath or affirmation. Therefore reasonable suspicion is the structural foundation and probable cause is built and supported on top of that foundation.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

you talking about PC for a search warrant or an arrest?

---

All of the above:

Amendment IV

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'

Quote:

---

Quoting Stevo

---

Why have someone else do your homework for you

---

It's not homework. I'm asking for clarification of terms that aren't expounded on all that much in my textbooks. I refuse to keep reading any further in these textbooks if I can't even get past this (possibly simple) distinction.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

anberlin32, are you talking about reasonable suspicion regarding a traffic stop or Terry stop, OR an arrest? The SC has associated "Reasonable Cause" with "Probable Cause", but don't let that confuse you with Reasonable suspicion that a crime may be afoot, a Terry stop. RS is a slightly lesser standard than PC.

---

I'm talking about Reasonable Suspicion for simply a detention of a person, though now that you mention the distinction I take it there are subtle, albeit important, distinctions to take note of? This stuff is making my head hurt. :(

Also I want to clarify that I understand reasonable suspicion to be lower standard than probable cause. My question was more along the lines of what in the language of the definitions makes one precede the other?

A Terry Stop can be based upon reasonable suspicion, but a warrantless arrest requires probable cause.

Quote:

---

Quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 US 366, 370 (2003)

---

A warrantless arrest of an individual in a public place for a felony, or a misdemeanor committed in the officer's presence, is consistent with the Fourth Amendment if the arrest is supported by probable cause.

---

Reasonable suspicion exists when an officer is aware of specific, articulable facts which, when considered with objective and reasonable inferences, form a basis for particularized suspicion. See United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981); United States v. Salinas, 940 F.2d 392, 394 (9th Cir.1991).

Probable cause for arrest exists when, at the moment the decision is made, the facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge and of which the officer has reasonably trustworthy information that would justify a prudent person's believing that the suspect had committed or was committing an offense. Qian v. Kautz, 168 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Cir. 1999). See also Woods v. City of Chicago, 234 F.3d 979, 996 (7th Cir. 2000).

Quote:

---

Quoting Stevo

---

Reasonable suspicion is all that is required to effect an arrest. Statutes dictate that an arrested person is to be brought before the nearest committing Magistrate Immediately, Without Delay, and with Due Diligence for a probable cause hearing. The 48 hour stipulation does not void or nullify the the clear language of the Law by giving the arresting officer still more time yet to drag his feet. Only the committing Magistrate has the keys to the jail. The committing Magistrate listens to both sides of the story and the committing Magistrate finds if probable cause exists or not. This is black letter Law on the books. Officers do not comply with Statutory Law. Officers follow policy while falsely believing that policy supersedes Law when they take arrested persons directly to jail. By Law, probable cause is found by the Magistrate and not by the arresting officer.

Example: 01:30 a.m. An officer finds a man meandering around in the darkness behind a building. The officer also notes that a window has been broken in the back of the building. The officers reasonable suspicion is that this man broke that window. Based upon this reasonable suspicion the officer makes a reasonable search and a reasonable seizure of the man. The arresting officer then takes the arrested person immediately, without delay, and with due diligence before a committing Magistrate and explains himself for making the arrest. The arrested person also explains himself before the committing Magistrate as to why he was behind the building, in the dark, at 01:30 a.m. Based upon the arresting officers reasonable suspicion (Oath or affirmation) the committing Magistrate finds if probable cause exists (not innocence or guilt) and either releases the arrested person or has him committed to jail.

As practiced today, police policy supersedes black letter Law and it is the officers who have the keys to the jail and it is the officers who find probable cause and it is the officers who commit arrested persons to jail. Magistrates have been taken out of the loop and have become rubber stamping clerks.

I respectfully disagree with you that probable cause is a requirement to effect an arrest pursuant to black letter Law. I must agree with you that probable cause is a requirement to effect an arrest pursuant to practiced policy. This is a direct result of arresting officers being committing officials instead of Magistrates pursuant to policy.

---

A PC hearing/arraignment/preliminary hearing/indictment, are additional protections, per SCOTUS, to establish PC, and as Aaron also pointed out, an officer still needs PC to charge.

Your quote of "Officers do not comply with Statutory Law", I have never heard before. The federal constitution mandates an arrest be based on PC. The SC has also ruled when a person must be arraigned or have a PC hearing IF arrested without a warrant and IF still held in custody. A state is free to
then, by statute or common law, mandate thier own arrest/bail procedure as long as it complies with the federal constitution.

Quote:

---

Quoting anberlin32

---

It's not homework. I'm asking for clarification of terms that aren't expounded on all that much in my textbooks. I refuse to keep reading any further in these textbooks if I can't even get past this (possibly simple) distinction.



I'm talking about Reasonable Suspicion for simply a detention of a person, though now that you mention the distinction I take it there are subtle, albeit important, distinctions to take note of? This stuff is making my head hurt. :(

Also I want to clarify that I understand reasonable suspicion to be lower standard than probable cause. My question was more along the lines of what in the language of the definitions makes one precede the other?

---

I asked Carl to post in this thread, he is a CA police officer and can cite specific case law, although Aaron posted some relevant cases.

Terry v. Ohio, you can look that up, started it all, an Ohio case. I live in Ohio and even have copied from the law library the Appeals court case from Ohio before it made it to the Ohio SC and then the US SC.

And since we are discussing the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" in California, I have to chime in and state that an arrest in California DOES require articulated probable cause.

From CPOLS:

"An arrest is valid only if supported by probable cause." (Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1037.) As has been stated, you may arrest someone without a warrant only if you have "probable cause" to believe he or she committed an offense. The classification of the offense--felony, misdemeanor, infraction--does not control. An arrest is "constitutionally reasonable" when an "officer has probable cause to believe a person committed even a minor crime in his presence." (Moore (2008) 128 S.Ct. 1598, 1604.)

"Probable cause" to arrest (1) requires more than the "reasonable suspicion" necessary for a detention and (2) is essentially the same as the "probable cause" required to obtain an arrest warrant or a search warrant. (Campa (1984) 36 Cal.3d 870, 879; Gorrostieta (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 71, 84.)

Note: There is no difference between the meaning of "reasonable cause," which is the term that appears in the California statutes (Pen. Code, § 836), and the term "probable cause" as used in federal Fourth Amendment law. The two terms are identical. (Memro (1995) 11 Cal.4th 786, 843; Puryear (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1195.)

Whether "probable cause" exists depends upon the reasonable conclusions that can be "drawn from the facts known to the arresting officer at the time of the arrest." (Devenpeck v. Alford (2004) 543 U.S. 146, 152; Pringle (2003) 540 U.S. 366, 371.) "Probable cause" exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime. (Price (1991) 1 Cal.4th 324, 410; Kraft (2000) 23 Cal.4th 978, 1037; Charles C. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 420, 423.) "[S]ufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment." (Garrison (1987) 480 U.S. 79, 87.)

And, for reasonable suspicion:

For an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have "reasonable suspicion" that: (1) criminal activity may be afoot and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity. (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119; Ornelas (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 695-696; Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7-8; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 386.)

To establish "reasonable suspicion," both the quality and quantity of the information you need is considerably less than the "probable cause" you need to arrest or search. (White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 387; Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1, 11.) "'[R]easonable suspicion' is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence. . . ." (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123; Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 274.)

"Reasonable suspicion" is evaluated based on objective facts. Your subjective thinking, i.e., the purpose behind your search or seizure (detention or arrest), should have no bearing on a court's determination of the legality of your action. Your "subjective intentions" are irrelevant in determining whether a detention or an arrest was justified. (See Sullivan (2001) 532 U.S. 769, 772; Whren (1996) 517 U.S. 806, 813; see also Robinette (1996) 519 U.S. 33, 38; Scott (1978) 436 U.S. 128, 138; Hull (1995) 34 Cal.App.4th 1448, 1454; Lloyd (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 724, 733.)

- Carl

Yes, thank you sergent because those are the definitions that I'm not understanding.

Quote:

---

"Probable cause" exists when the totality of the circumstances would lead a person of ordinary care and prudence to entertain an honest and strong suspicion that the person to be arrested is guilty of a crime.

"reasonable suspicion" that: (1) criminal activity may be afoot and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity.

---

*So probable cause is made by a "person of ordinary care and prudence" while reasonable suspicion is made by a "reasonable person."
--->To me, these seem like synonyms of each other, but please correct me if I am wrong.

*Probable cause uses the phrase "honest and strong suspicion" whereas reasonable suspicion uses simply "suspicion."
--->If, as your CPOLS reads, one's subjective thinking is invalid then who determines what "honest and strong" suspicion is versus mere suspicion? Isn't that based on the subjective thinking of the officer?

*The only main difference I see is that probable cause looks for the "totality of the circumstances" but even this seems close to reasonable suspicion like when an officer is required not to have mere suspicion alone, but to be able to articulate it (hence, "articulable facts"), no? At least that's what my professor told me (who's also a sergent but for SoCal).

^Those are mainly my concerns. Thanks for your assistance by the way.

Reasonable suspicion does not require a crime. Reasonable suspicion only requires sufficient articulation to believe that crime may be "afoot."

Probable cause requires that a crime be committed, or, that there be reason to believe that a crime was committed.

And the issue of subjective versus objective thinking is one of facts and legality. For instance, I might see a car full of young males of a sort that leads me to believe they might be members of a local street gang. I want to contact them and find out who they are and what they are up to. So, I follow and wait for a code violation of some sort (say, for rolling a stop sign in violation of VC 22450). Thus, while my reasonable suspicion for the detention is the Vehicle Code violation, my subjective reasoning is that I want to ID these possible gang members. Note that I also have probable cause to believe that a crime was committed, so I can issue a citation for the offense.

Now, where they are not the same might be a situation where I have a couple of youths loitering to the rear of closed businesses at 1 AM. I can't just say, "They looked suspicions, so I stopped them," that is not legally sufficient. But, if I can articulate WHY it was suspicious, it can be. So, if I can articulate the individual circumstances that lead me to believe they might be up to criminal activity (time of day, no general or easy access to pedestrian throughfares, history of break-ins, furtive movements or activity upon my appearance, etc.) I can justify a detention even if I have no crime. In such a case, I have articulable "reasonable suspicion" for a detention, but I lack "probable cause" to make an arrest.

Oh, and I was also in So. Cal., and taught courses on juvenile crime there.

Excellent. That answers all my doubts and concerns.

Thank you.