Jump to content
cjfernan

Understanding Probable Cause

Recommended Posts

Pre-Amble

This post is meant to explore the meaning of the phrase “search without probable cause.” Furthermore, while the resolution doesn’t require an examination of the Fourth Amendment, I’ll approach the analysis as if the only topical actions are ones that directly deal with search and seizure issues. Also, I won’t go into any of the Patriot Act stuff, as the topic paper does a really good job with that. Rather, the purpose of this post is to inform and educate you about the potential legal implications of the topic. If there’s sufficient interest, I’ll also do a similar explanation for “detain without charge.” Most of this information comes from legal secondary sources. Specifically, I relied heavily on Criminal Investigation Handbook § 4.02

 

Definition

Probable Cause from Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004):

“A reasonable ground to suspect that a person has committed or is committing a crime or that a place contains specific items connected with a crime. • Under the Fourth Amendment, probable cause -- which amounts to more than a bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction -- must be shown before an arrest warrant or search warrant may be issued.”

 

Understanding Probable Cause

  1. The Arrest
    Police may temporarily detain an individual, and even frisk or briefly handcuff that person, with less than probable cause. However, probable cause is required before a person may be arrested. An arrest occurs when an individual is detained in circumstances in which he/she would reasonably believe that there is no freedom to leave and the detention will be more than temporary. Police need not state that ''this is an arrest'' or ''you are under arrest'' before probable cause is required; obviously, when the handcuffs are on and the individual is going to be removed to the police station, an arrest has occurred and it must be based upon probable cause.
  2. “Authority” instead of “Policy”
    Probable cause is a fact-specific inquiry determined on a case-by-case basis. Probable cause is not mere conjecture or surmise. It must derive from facts and be sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the suspect had committed or was committing a criminal offense. Running from a police officer will not, standing alone, constitute probable cause; but running with a gun in one's hand will certainly suffice. As you can understand, it would be hard to create a “policy” that limits probable cause, since it’s within the discretion of an arresting officer.
  3. The actor
    The Fourth Amendment applies only to official, governmental action and not to private action which violates privacy rights. If the search was conducted by persons not acting under government directions, but rather on their own or for some private company (even in a private security capacity), the government may use the evidence acquired, even where it was acquired unlawfully.
  4. “Search” requirement
    One of the pre-requisites of the resolution is that the affirmative decrease the authority of a SEARCH. Therefore, the affirmative better make sure that they are curtailing an action that is deemed a search. Here are some examples of activities that the Supreme Court has deemed NOT to be a search (this list isn’t exhaustive):

    1. Inspection of the contents that had been legally removed via private action. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984).


    2. Use of a trained animals. United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 697 (1983) (also reaffirmed earlier this week by the Supreme Court in Illinois v. Caballes).


    3. Planting tracking devices inside chemicals used to manufacture illicit controlled substances in order to monitor their movement and location. United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).


    4. Inspecting objects in an open field, even if entry is illegal. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).


  5. The “reasonable” requirement
    The Fourth Amendment only protects individuals from UNREASONABLE searches. Therefore, the search must be in a context where a person had some expectation of privacy. Otherwise, the person should have expected to be searched, and such a search would not be unreasonable. Here are some examples of places where you have no expectation of privacy (thus, you can legally be searched):

    1. Open areas surrounding a private residence. United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).


    2. Prison and jail cells, including personal containers within those cells. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984).


    3. Trash containers kept outside one's home and meant for pick-up. California v. Greenwood, 108 S. Ct. 1625 (1988).


    4. Public areas, such as parks and playgrounds and public streets, which are open to public inspection. United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983).


    5. Individual bank records that banks keep for daily record-keeping. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 (1976).


    6. Information concerning telephone calls made from a private phone (not the content of those calls but information as to the numbers dialed, acquired by pen registers, which information is available to telephone companies for billing purposes. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).


    7. Identity of a person which are available to public observation or perception such as facial characteristics, size, gait, speech, and handwriting. United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (1973).


  6. Probable Cause Exceptions
    By now, the affirmative should be dealing with an “unreasonable search” performed by the government. Now the only real issue is whether the search is performed without probable cause. There are 8 exceptions to the probable cause requirement in securing a warrant:

    1. searches incident to a lawful arrest


    2. stop-and-frisk searches


    3. moving vehicle searches


    4. emergency searches


    5. inventory searches


    6. border searches


    7. other ''administrative searches


    8. consent searches


  1. Searches Incident to a Lawful Arrest
    Officers are allowed to conduct body searches and searches of an area around the place where a suspect is arrested (an area in which the suspect might reach for a weapon or evidence to conceal or destroy). Such searches may be made either immediately before or after an arrest while the arrested person is still in police custody. A search is legal if the initial arrest is lawful, which gave probable cause in the first place.
    Police are required to obtain an arrest warrant in order to arrest a suspect at his home. If, however, they search for a person in another person's home, they must have obtained a search warrant to search for him there. When a person is arrested outside the home, no arrest warrant is required by the fourth amendment, unless one is required by state law. If police attempt to arrest a person without an arrest warrant outside the home and he seeks refuge in his own or another's home, the police may pursue him there, search for him there, and arrest him there without either an arrest or search warrant, provided they are still in ''hot pursuit.'' If, during a ''hot pursuit search,'' they stumble over evidence of a crime that is ''in plain view'' in places where they have reason to believe the suspect might be concealing himself, they may seize the evidence without violating the home owner's fourth amendment rights.
    When entering a person's home to arrest him, the police may have cause to believe that confederates of the suspect are on the premises and present a potential danger to them while they are there. If this is the case (there must be actual cause for this belief; police cannot assume this as a matter of routine procedure), police are permitted to conduct a ''protective sweep'' of other rooms of the house or apartment, even when they have already arrested the suspect in one room. It is during these ''protective sweeps'' that police often run across incriminating evidence in plain view.
    If closed containers are taken into custody by police and removed from the suspect's control for safekeeping, the police may have to obtain a search warrant if they wish to search the containers since such a search no longer falls under the ''incident to a lawful arrest'' exception. However, closed containers can be searched by officers during or immediately after an arrest if they are still under the control of the person arrested or within his proximity. ''Closed containers'' may include purses, suitcases, boxes, bags, packages, pouches, etc.
    If the requirements of making a lawful arrest are not met, or if the search incident to a lawful arrest exceeds the limited scope permitted by the exception, any contraband, instrumentalities of the crime, ''fruits'' and evidence of the crime, or identifiable evidence of another crime inadvertently recovered during the illegal arrest and/or search will be inadmissible. In addition, any incriminating statements made by the suspect during his illegal arrest may be excluded as ''fruits of the poisonous tree,'' even if they are voluntarily given after the reading of proper Miranda warnings.
  2. Stop and Frisk Searches
    The United States Supreme Court, in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), permitted police to temporarily detain (''stop'') and check for weapons (''frisk'') even when the police officer had less than probable cause to believe a crime was being committed. However, an officer can only “stop” someone if the officer has actual facts (rather than suspicion). Further, “frisking” is limited to a pat-down type of check, permissible only when the person's behavior indicated he/she may be ''armed and dangerous.'' This limited intrusion, upon less than probable cause, is justified to meet the safety needs of the officer.
    This ''frisk'' is not justified to look for evidence of criminality. A search for evidence other than a weapon must be based upon probable cause. If the pat-down reveals something that ''feels like'' contraband, such as vials of drugs, the officer may then reach into the garment to seize it, as long as it is immediately recognizable as contraband; if the officer has to manually manipulate the object to be sure of its identity, he/she has exceeded the permissible scope of a frisk and the resulting evidence will be suppressed. An on-top-of-the-garment frisk is not necessary where the officer already knows where to search in order to recover a weapon.
    The search may only be for weapons, not evidence and the detention must be for a limited time.
  3. Vehicle Searches
    This exception is a little difficult to understand. If there is no probable cause to believe that a moving vehicle contains contraband but only probable cause to arrest one of its occupants, then the only search permitted of the vehicle is that permitted by the search incident to a lawful arrest exception, i.e., the search of the body of the person arrested, including any area or closed container within lunging distance (see previous exception). This includes any open area within the vehicle and any closed container found therein, but does not include locked or inaccessible areas such as the trunk area or the area underneath the hood of the vehicle. In the case of investigative detention of the driver or occupants, it would include a search of accessible areas only for weapons if it was reasonable to suspect they might contain weapons or other dangerous items. If, however, the police have probable cause that they will find contraband within the vehicle, any area of the vehicle may be searched, including any closed containers found therein.
    Officers may not randomly stop vehicles traveling on the highways in order to check for unobserved vehicle defects, vehicle registrations, or operator's permits; there must at least be ''reasonable suspicion'' that there is some violation occurring which permits such an investigative stop. Police may, however, conduct spot checks which involve minimal intrusion, such as stopping cars at checkpoints for license and registration checks, signs of intoxication, or for persons who are illegally in the United States, most of which can be done by brief visual inspection of the vehicle's occupants and the asking of a few questions. Also, there is no constitutional violation if a vehicle which has been legally stopped, or is parked, is visually inspected as to anything that may appear on its exterior, such as paint or dirt specimens or tire tracks, or as to its vehicle identification number, even if that is in the interior of the vehicle. Moreover, there is no basis for constitutional objection if the location of moving vehicles is tracked in any open, public area by visual or electronic surveillance.
  4. Emergency Searches
    There is a general category of constitutionally permitted warrantless searches which are classified as ''emergency searches.'' In general, these are searches conducted by police in situations where human life is threatened imminently or where crucial evidence of a crime may be lost or destroyed before there is time to obtain a search warrant.
    Examples of such searches include the following:

    a. Police invaded defendant's premises without a warrant when a neighbor advised them that a bullet from the apartment above had penetrated his ceiling and wounded him, indicating gunfire had occurred in the apartment they subsequently searched. Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987).


    b. Police took a blood sample from a person arrested for drunk driving without a warrant and without his consent in order to determine the alcohol content of his blood during a period soon after the arrest when the blood-alcohol content level was dissipating because of absorption. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).


    c. Police entered defendant's premises without a warrant and without announcing their presence or knocking first because they had grounds for believing that evidence in his possession was being destroyed or disposed of. Ker v. California, 374 U.S. 23 (1963).


    d. Police forcibly removed fingernail scrapings from a person suspected of strangling his wife when they observed him attempting to remove the evidence while at the station house. Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291 (1973).


  5. Inventory Searches
    Inventory searches are searches of persons and property taken into police custody for the purpose of protecting and conserving the property while it is in police custody. There are two situations in which the inventory exception is most frequently involved:

    1. property removed from a person after arrest and booking when he is confined in jail or lock-up


    2. property removed from vehicles which have been impounded or removed to a secure parking lot after its operator has been arrested.

    Federal courts, although not some state courts, permit locked areas of the vehicle to be opened and their contents inventoried. Also, for both types of inventory searches mentioned above, the United States Supreme Court has permitted bona fide searches of luggage, shoulder bags, and other closed containers for the purpose of inventorying their contents.


  6. Border Searches
    At international border-crossing points, and ports of entry (both by air and by sea) and their functional equivalents, customs officials are given very broad powers to search without warrants persons entering the United States for items it is illegal to bring into the country at all or to bring in without declaring them and paying a duty or tax on them. There are very intrusive searches of the body which customs officers may be required to obtain a warrant to perform, but otherwise their powers to search are virtually unrestricted, without the necessity of showing probable cause that seizable goods will be uncovered by the search.
    Border searches are not those merely conducted in close proximity to the international border. To qualify for the border-search exception the search must be conducted by customs agents at border-entry points where inspections of this kind are made. Otherwise, at least reasonable suspicion that a person or vehicle is carrying or transporting seizable goods or persons must exist before a warrantless search is authorized.
  7. Administrative Searches
    By ''administrative searches'' the courts generally refer to searches conducted by the state for regulatory purposes (typically under laws regulating business for health and safety reasons and providing for periodic inspections) or to prevent crime by blocking the admission of weapons or other dangerous substances into restricted areas such as courtrooms or courthouses, schools, and airport boarding areas.
    When it is a question of health and safety inspections of regulated business, the Supreme Court has held since 1967 that administrative officials must first seek permission to enter private premises to conduct such inspections from the owners or occupants. If refused entry they must obtain judicial authorization or warrants, except in the case of certain types of business (such as gun dealers and alcoholic beverage dispensers) which are denominated ''pervasively regulated enterprises.'' Here they are permitted to enter without warrants whenever Congress has by legislation authorized such inspections, and the need for unannounced inspections is justified by diminished expectations of privacy in the case of these strictly regulated businesses.
    In the case of such administrative searches, the Supreme Court has approved more liberal standards for granting search warrants than are required when investigating already-committed crimes. Warrants do not have to be supported by a probable cause showing, and may be issued for ''area inspections,'' provided reasonable legislative or administrative standards are met.
    Searches conducted in certain environments, such as schools, may only require ''reasonable suspicion'' if all that is entailed is the enforcement of a school regulation and the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student.
  8. Consent Searches
    Police and other government officials may search areas protected by the fourth amendment without warrants and even without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity if they have first obtained the voluntary permission of a person who has the right to give such consent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sigh. This isn't a free t file. I only defined one word. And, if you read it properly, you CAN'T define "probable cause" because that's a fact-specific inquiry. Unless your 1AC mimics mock trial (you're a plaintiff asserting a cause of action), any definition of probable cause is useless.

Thus, you CAN use court cases to define "search." That's about it, since the resolution doesn't require that the search be unreasonable.

Rather, this is an introduction to show you the heart of half the topic: adjusting one of the 8 exceptions to the probable cause requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread stuck. I like having a specific definition for probable cause on hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Chris. This is terrific. I'm struck by how open these very serious policy issues are to interpretation. They really put a lot of trust in the individual government worker.

 

Take, for instance, the stop and frisk exception under Terry v. Ohio. As I said on another thread, I once witnessed this happen when I was on a ride-along with officers. The officers stopped a man and his son who were walking down a street because they thought the man looked like someone who had a warrant out for his arrest. They also made the stop under the pretense that the man and his son were not walking on the sidewalk (though this stretch of street had no sidewalk). The cops frisked both the man and the kid (I'll never forget the look on that kid's face; he couldn't have been more than ten years old), even when it was clear that the man wasn't the one they were looking for and that the only infraction was not walking on the sidewalk.

 

Now, according to what you've written here, that shouldn't have happened. But the cops apparently knew what they could get away with (even with a reporter watching the whole thing), and the man and his son apparently didn't know their rights or they knew that it wouldn't matter if they knew their rights because the cops were gonna do whatever they wanted.

 

What I'm trying to get at here is that, with the exception of the routine administrative searches, the notion of probable cause seems to be about perception. And if it's about perception, wouldn't it be a reasonable strategy to aim a proposed policy at changing perception? For instance, if "probable cause" is defined by prejudice, as "racial profiling" statistics seem to indicate, wouldn't it be reasonable to look for ways to try to remove prejudice from the equation?

 

If so, it would seem that focusing on education (officer training, perhaps, but I'm thinking more about public schools) would be a most effective tactic. Think about the story I told above. One could argue that the mindset of persecutor and persecuted was already in place before the encounter. Thus the officers felt justified to violate the man and the boy's rights, and the man and the boy felt obliged to acquiesce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe, I agree that the search you've described is wrong.

However, the Supreme Court says otherwise. In United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (1973), the Court ruled that searches to ascertain the identity of individuals (the facts of the case are almost identical to your situation) are NOT unreasonable. Therefore, there was no violation of 4th Amendment rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CONCLUSION

 

I didn't want to write a conclusion, but I guess I'll do that, just to give my thoughts on what the affirmative ground there is on the "search without probable cause" section of the resolution

 

Really understanding Probable Cause

For debate purposes, "search without probable cause" = searches without warrant. Therefore, if aff plans forces police (or other government officials) to obtain warrants in more situations, they're probably topical.

In real terms, probable cause requires obtaining a warrant. To have probable cause, you need articulable facts. These don't have to be tangible facts, but it has to supass mere suspicion. There's a difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Maybe I need to do another post about this difference.

 

The fundamental question is, what situations are appropriate to force an acquisition of a warrant?

  1. Increasing the scope of search
    As I've mentioned above, there are certain situations where the Supreme Court has held that a search hasn't occurred. For instance, take the dog-sniffing example. If you get pulled over for speeding, the police can have a drug-sniffing dog sniff around the outside of your car. According to the law, a search hasn't occurred. If an aff were to increase the definition of search, any one of these activities would be a "search without probable cause" (remember, for debate purposes, you must obtain a warrant to search someone).
    In this type of case, Kirk would be right: you would need cases to define "search" through judicial interpretation, rather than dictionary definitions.
  2. Increasing the scope of unreasonable
    If a search is unreasonable and the police haven't obtained a warrant, then that's a "search without probable cause." In my first post, I've listed some situations where searches are considered reasonable. One case is being searched in a domestic airport: That's a public place where you have no expectation of privacy. Therefore, a plan that curtailed this right would probable be topical. Another case is one which Joe mentioned: creating specific guidelines on when police can pull over individuals.
  3. Removing the exceptions from the probable cause doctrine
    Even though a search is unreasonable, there are 8 situations where police can conduct a search without a warrant. Eliminating any one of these exceptions would probably be viable cases.

This list isn't exhaustive. You still have to do research on probable cause. This is just a starting point so you have some understanding of how the law works before you actually start researching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joe, I agree that the search you've described is wrong.

However, the Supreme Court says otherwise. In United States v. Mara, 410 U.S. 19 (1973), the Court ruled that searches to ascertain the identity of individuals (the facts of the case are almost identical to your situation) are NOT unreasonable. Therefore, there was no violation of 4th Amendment rights.

 

That decision would make for an awesome case! But it doesn't seem to match the incident I described above. It's all about prosecutors using grand juries to to conduct searches without probable cause (i.e. warrants). Justice Douglas's dissent is particularly powerful and inspiring.

 

But the above incident I shared still seems to hinge on officer discression, and the powerlessness and lack of knowledge of the supposed suspect. Again, the inherency seems to be modes of thought, and historical, cultural and institutional power structures and prejudices. I could argue (admittedly in philosophical ways, but with strong evidence) that the so-called suspect was already imprisoned before he and his son were frisked, simply because of their race and economic status. How can such things be addressed and amended through policy with any real efficacy? Or in ways that haven't already been tried by well-intentioned legislators?

 

One other thing I remember about the incident and the ride-along: The cops kept telling me that they viewed that particular neighborhood as a "zero tolerance zone." There was good reason for this: The residents had been menaced for years by violent drug dealers. But still, there's a mindset issue here, which, my incident shows, arguably damages the innocent (in this case, a boy) by perpetuating a prison-state mentality.

 

Which is not to say I don't appreciate all the hard work and thought you're putting into your posts. I'm really grappling with them. I and my colleagues on the debate squad just tend to look at these things from a big-picture perspective, and we're hoping to find ways to approach the topic in this way, because it motivates us and, frankly, it seems valid.

 

I hope you'll do a similar analysis of "detain without charge" -- if you have the time and energy.

:wavey:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no

 

only under his interpretation of one half of the resolution for domestic cases, you still have other interpretations, the other half of the resolution and international cases

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, this analysis is only relevant if you believe that that the only topical cases are ones that deal with Fourth Amendment search and seizure. However, if you look over my post, I hinted at 19 possible cases, not 8. Look over the "search" portion and "unreasonable" portion: either overturning one of those cases or enacting legislation that prevented the government from making such searches would be a viable case.

In fact, there are MANY more potential cases just using the Fourth Amendment as a starting point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest case I think debaters are going to hear this year is going to be Terry v. Ohio (Terry Stops) which goes over the first real instance of probable cause in a stop and frisk search. If I were still debating, I would know this case a preceeding cases very well. This would also help you out in T debate. Another good source would be Robert Dahls book 'How Democratic is the American Constitution' which should give some really good arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GOD I LOVE THIS GUY (NOT LITERALLY). FREE T FILES. YOU THINK YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME AFFS FOR NEXT YEAR WITH FRONTLINES AND EVERYTHING. THAT WOULD BE SWEET. WHAT ELSE CAN YOU SEND ME. KEEP MAKING FILES AND POSTING THEM.:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx man....this and your other thread are both really helpful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hope everyone caught the senate judiciary committee questioning of the attorney general and director of the f.b.i. regarding the renewal of the patriot act. they discussed gathering info from people's library records and sneak-and-peak searches, for examples. no less than arlen spectre seemed to suggest that probable cause was a good standard for searches conducted under federal authority. it's on c-span right now (1:42p.m. central time) actually. take care. .k (kevin.sanchez@gmail.com)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
they discussed gathering info from people's library records and sneak-and-peak searches, for examples.
Did they discuss the fact that such inquiries were already legal long before the Patriot Act was passed? Did they discuss the fact that grand juries can subpoena records with far LESS scrutiny and oversight than that provided by the Patriot Act?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

t: "Did they discuss the fact that such inquiries were already legal long before the Patriot Act was passed? Did they discuss the fact that grand juries can subpoena records with far LESS scrutiny and oversight than that provided by the Patriot Act?"

 

yup. gonzales made both of those arguments. and mueller cited a case prior to 9/11 in which a shipment of esctasy was secretly seized so that the f.b.i. could arrest individuals further along the supply route. since 9/11, the f.b.i. replaced a storage room full of explosive material with an inert substance without notifying the alleged terrorists; had they not done so, they literally would've only had sufficient evidence to arrest one suspect.

 

the time period of delayed notification is still indefinite. gonzales said the average length of delay was between 30 and 90 days. that's pretty insane - three months or more without being notified. none of the cases the f.b.i. director mentioned seemed to justify a delay of more than a month. one is very right to point out, however, that the patriot act made what was already legal in the 'war on drugs' equally so in the 'war on terror'.

 

the counter-arguments on library records, internet files, etc. were, in my opinion, much stronger. during a grand jury subpeona process, a judge can say no, and you can challenge the searches before the judge. not so in these cases (which floored me). the judge may ask for more evidence, but once the government has made a sufficient showing, he or she is legally constrained to sign off on these searches. there's no possibility of being denied this power. (i suppose this is a bit of red herring though, since it's extremely rare that the f.b.i. is denied warrants by the secret court ... i think it's something like 3 times in 30 years or something.)

 

moreover, these searches aren't restricted by the standard of individualized suspicion, which is what has many civil libertarians from both parties up in arms. the f.b.i. or homeland security can ask for the check-out records of an entire library, searching thousands of innocent people to find one allegedly guilty one. the library can't say they've been searched to anyone (like the press) or even inform the people whose records have been searched. this really amounts to legalized data mining, and smacks of the now (supposedly) defunct 'total information awareness' project.

 

anyway, your emails, your a.i.m. conversations, your u.r.l. visitations, your medical records, your library records, and so on, aren't safe... if they ever were. =) .k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure you look into the term 'reasonable suspicion' as well. it is basicaly a scaled down version of probable cause that allows officers to do many searches based mostly on their own opinions. many cases are going to rely on switching the requirements for certain searches and seizures from simply needing reasonable suspicion to requiring probable cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How easy is it going to be to attack switching the requirements? I have thought of using another officer as a confirmation to the arresting officers probable cause. If a case set a law up setting certain criteria up that made an officer go through a series of question or tests would this be an effective case? I think restrictions can be made for search and seizure or probable cause searches, but I don't know if the advantages would be sufficient?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the Hiibel v. Nevada case....If an officer gets a report of a beating and goes to investigate, then a witness to the crime actually points out Hiibel's truck and then on top of that, even when all the officer was doing asking for his name, Hiibel refused to give his name 11 times to the officer which ended up in him being arrested. Doesn't that fall under probable cause?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...