Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof that in United States law is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch ' "; [1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", [2] and the suspicion must be associated with the ...
Cathy E. Moore described the totality of the circumstances test as a "balancing approach" rather than a strict application of "analytical and evidentiary rules", [5] and Michael Coenen wrote that a totality of the circumstances test is the "antithesis" of an "inflexible checklist". [6]
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 ...
While the police officer must have reasonable suspicion to detain a person, the officer has no obligation to inform the person what that suspicion was. The only time the officer would have to articulate the suspicion is when the person was arrested, and the person later challenged the validity of the stop in court.
1. reasonable suspicion 2. probable cause 3. arrest (including invoking the implied consent law) 4. criminal charge and "civil law" sanctions [54] The legal stages are relevant because of the degree of evidence required at each stage. (For example, the police need not demonstrate guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to execute a traffic ...
A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. [1] [2] Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk.
Alabama v. White, 496 US 325 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Fourth Amendment.The majority opinion ruled that anonymous tips can provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop provided that police can factually verify the circumstances asserted by the tip.
During the course of a search an officer may develop reasonable suspicion or probable cause; once this has been developed the individual loses the right to revoke consent. However, in United States v. Fuentes (1997), the court found the "[m]ere refusal to consent to a stop or search does not give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause."