Understanding how probable cause and reasonable suspicion are different is crucial for anyone involved in the criminal justice system. Continue reading for more information and consult with a knowledgeable Orangetown criminal defense attorney today.
What is Probable Cause?
Probable cause is the legal standard required for a police officer to make an arrest, conduct a search, or obtain a warrant in the criminal justice system. It is a belief, based on facts and circumstances, that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed, and that the person to be arrested committed it, or that evidence of a crime will be found in the location to be searched.
This standard requires more than a hunch or suspicion. The information supporting probable cause must be credible and sufficient to lead a reasonably cautious and prudent person to believe that the suspect is guilty or that evidence exists. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution mandates that warrants be supported by probable cause.
What is Reasonable Suspicion?
Reasonable suspicion is also a legal standard in the United States. It permits a brief, non-intrusive stop and detention of an individual for questioning, commonly known as a stop and frisk.
This standard requires an officer to possess specific, articulable facts, which, when combined with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the intrusion. The facts must suggest that the individual is involved in criminal activity. For example, an individual driving erratically or matching a credible description of a suspect could establish reasonable suspicion. This standard is permissible under the Fourth Amendment and is outlined by the Supreme Court case Terry v. Ohio.
How Are Probable Cause and Reasonable Suspicion Different?
There are several differences between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. The most significant distinction between these standards is the degree of certainty required and the scope of the police action they permit.
Probable cause demands a substantially higher amount or quality of evidence. It must be sufficient for a reasonably cautious and prudent person to believe a crime has occurred or that evidence exists, justifying a major intrusion like an arrest or a full search. It is the mandatory constitutional standard required to obtain a judicial warrant.
Reasonable suspicion, however, does not demand as much certainty. It only requires specific, articulable facts that suggest criminal involvement when paired with rational inferences. It is essentially an officer’s ability to articulate why they suspect something, rather than a belief that a crime has definitively been committed. This lower standard only permits a limited, temporary detention of a person for questioning and a brief pat-down for weapons. Reasonable suspicion does not authorize an arrest or a full search. The facts gathered during a brief stop may, however, elevate the suspicion to probable cause, allowing for further action.
For more information and legal advice, contact a skilled defense attorney today.
