Exam 2 Chapter 3 Flashcards
Reasonable Suspicion
the officer can explain why a crime has likely occurred and point to reasons for that conclusion
Probable Cause
sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed
Legal definition of probable cause
“facts and circumstances within the officers” knowledge are sufficient themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution
The information and situation known to the officers alone are substantial enough to justify the actions of a reasonably cautious individual.
Who is the “reasonable person”
A hypothetical person who represents an average, reasonable and prudent member of society based on behavior or actions
Practical definition of probable cause
Reasonable basis for believing that a suspect has committed an offense or that the items sought can be found in a certain place
A justifiable foundation for believing that a suspect has engaged in wrongdoing or that the items being sought can be located at a specific location.
4th Amendment Issues
Knock & Announce
Police MUST knock on the door and say who they are before entering with a search warrant. It gives people a chance to answer the door and protects their privacy. But if the police think it’s too dangerous or won’t make a difference, they can skip the knocking and announcing part.
Probable Cause Proof Level Comparison to Others
Reasonable Suspicion: Police have a good reason, based on specific facts, to think someone might be involved in a crime.
Probable Cause: It’s a stronger belief than reasonable suspicion. There’s a reasonable basis to believe a crime happened or that evidence of a crime can be found in a specific place or on a specific person.
Preponderance of the Evidence: In civil cases, it means it’s more likely than not (over 50% certainty) that something is true or someone is responsible.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: It’s a higher standard than preponderance of the evidence. It requires stronger evidence, around 75-80% certainty, that something is true.
Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: The highest standard in criminal cases. The evidence presented is so strong that a reasonable person has no doubt the defendant committed the crime.
Warrant Requirements
To conduct a search/arrest, law enforcement needs a warrant, which is obtained by demonstrating probable cause to a judge. This ensures that there is a reasonable basis for the action and protects individuals’ rights against unjustified intrusions. However, there are exceptions to the warrant requirement in certain situations where immediate action is necessary
Probable cause establishment
Enough facts/ evidence to convince a judge that there is a good reason to search/ arrest someone
Probable Cause Cases & Rules of Law
History of/ Evolution of:
“Man of Reasonable Caution”
Objective standard used to assess the behavior or actions of an individual in a given situation
Motion To Supress & Burden of Proof (with warrant)
When a Warrant Was Obtained:
Process: If the police got a warrant before searching or seizing something, the evidence they found is usually considered valid. But a person accused of a crime can ask the court to exclude that evidence through a motion to suppress. They argue that the warrant was obtained or executed incorrectly, or that their rights were violated.
Burden of Proof: In this case, it’s usually the person’s responsibility to prove to the court that there was a problem with the warrant or how it was used. They need to present evidence and convince the court to throw out the evidence.
Motion To Supress & Burden of Proof( without warrant)
When No Warrant Was Obtained:
Process: If the police searched or seized something without a warrant, a person can file a motion to suppress the evidence. They claim that the search was unlawful and violated their rights.
Burden of Proof: In this case, the burden might shift to the prosecution or government to justify the legality of the search. They need to show that there was a valid exception to the warrant requirement, like an emergency situation or the person’s consent.
