Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The usual definition of the probable cause standard includes “a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true.” [6] Notably, this definition does not require that the person making the recognition must hold a public office or have public authority, which allows the ...
The Supreme Court, in finding the arrest to be constitutional, stated that the officer had probable cause to stop the defendant's car. [3] The Court emphasized that "probable cause" was the standard for conducting the arrest, not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" as is required for criminal convictions. The Court stressed that if the "beyond a ...
Gates, the Supreme Court held that the totality of the circumstances test should be used to assess whether an anonymous tip is sufficient to provide probable cause. [10] Writing for a majority of the Court, Justice William Rehnquist explained that a totality test was superior to a bright line rule because magistrates would not be "restricted in ...
Allegations supporting the murder charge are laid out in this probable cause statement submitted by a Chillicothe police officer. Show comments. Advertisement. Advertisement.
County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), was a United States Supreme Court case which involved the question of within what period of time must a suspect arrested without a warrant (warrantless arrests) be brought into court to determine if there is probable cause for holding the suspect in custody.
Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004), was a United States Supreme Court decision dealing with warrantless arrests and the Fourth Amendment.The Court ruled that even if an officer wrongly arrests a suspect for one crime, the arrest may still be "reasonable" if there is objectively probable cause to believe that the suspect is involved in a different crime.
Here, it is uncontested that the officer, upon recovering the suspected cocaine, had probable cause to believe a felony had been committed; the question is whether he had probable cause to believe Pringle committed that crime. The "substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt," Brinegar v.
In 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit further ruled in United States v.Hector Magallon-Lopez that police can lie about witnessing traffic offenses during a stop as long as reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause exists beforehand (similar to Frazier v. Cupp). [9] [10]