My question involves criminal law for the state of: California
What are the definitions for each and where can these these found?
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?
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.
Are you saying PC is not a requirement to effect an arrest? If you are, you are, respectfully, incorrect.
Are you talking about PC for a search warrant or an arrest?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.
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.
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.
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.'
A Terry Stop can be based upon reasonable suspicion, but a warrantless arrest requires 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).Quoting Maryland v. Pringle, 540 US 366, 370 (2003)
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).
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.
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.
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?