Search and Seizure

[cua68]

I was wondering if I could get some help in clarifying some questions about search and seizure, as well as reasonable suspicion and probable cause. I believe that I have a very basic knowledge of these concepts, as I was a seasonal police officer in Delaware and was given some instruction in these areas, but still do not grasp them in their entirety.
I understand that reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct and investigatory stop and a "pat down" can be conducted for weapons. However, my question is when does that reasonable suspicion turn into probable cause? For example, say you observe two males standing in an alley. It is late at night and they appear to be conducting a hand to hand transaction. You see an exchange of some sort between the two individuals and they are clearly acting in a covert manner to conceal what was being exchanged. Certainly this is enough reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Would this also be considered probable cause for a search? Is the probable cause articulated for a search the same as the probable cause articulated for an arrest? Could you conduct the search for fear that evidence would be destroyed, or do you have to actually see the object that is in question being exchanged for a search to take place?
Also, if a suspect runs that is being stopped on reasonable suspicion can you arrest them if it turns out that no crime was committed. The suspect has an obligation to stop because the contact is based on more than mere suspicion, correct?
Thank you for any help in clarification!

[retdetsgt]

Why do I think you want us to do your homework for you?

[cua68]

It's not homework, although after re-reading my post I can clearly see why it would seem that way. I was just trying to get some clarification on certain areas that I found confusing. The knowledge that I do have is basic since my training was extremely condensed. I've never taken any type of criminal justice class before, so the only time I had to really learn about this was the one day during seasonal training. I'm aware of definitions and some case law on the matter, such as Terry v. Ohio, Carroll Doctrine, U.S. v Johnson etc., but become unsure in it's interpretation and application.

[retdetsgt]

I understand that reasonable suspicion is needed to conduct and investigatory stop and a "pat down" can be conducted for weapons. However, my question is when does that reasonable suspicion turn into probable cause? For example, say you observe two males standing in an alley. It is late at night and they appear to be conducting a hand to hand transaction. You see an exchange of some sort between the two individuals and they are clearly acting in a covert manner to conceal what was being exchanged. Certainly this is enough reasonable suspicion to make a stop. Would this also be considered probable cause for a search?Probably, you have to look at the totality of the circumstances Is the probable cause articulated for a search the same as the probable cause articulated for an arrest?The probable cause for the arrest is the evidence you found. The probable cause for the search is required to make the evidence admissible Could you conduct the search for fear that evidence would be destroyed, or do you have to actually see the object that is in question being exchanged for a search to take place?Yes, probably. Again, you have to look at the totality of the circumstances. If it was in an area where drug sales and use are common, it would be easy. If it were two well dressed, middle aged women in a grocery store where it might be exchanging recipes, no.


Also, if a suspect runs that is being stopped on reasonable suspicion can you arrest them if it turns out that no crime was committed. The suspect has an obligation to stop because the contact is based on more than mere suspicion, correct? People have no obligation to talk to you. In some areas, running might constitute disorderly conduct or something like that, but where I worked, I could only chase the person down. But if I had no evidence of a crime, I couldn't arrest them just for running (on foot, that is)
Thank you for any help in clarification!

Answers imbedded.

[Samuel]

However, my question is when does that reasonable suspicion turn into probable cause? Would this also be considered probable cause for a search? Is the probable cause articulated for a search the same as the probable cause articulated for an arrest? Could you conduct the search for fear that evidence would be destroyed, or do you have to actually see the object that is in question being exchanged for a search to take place?
Also, if a suspect runs that is being stopped on reasonable suspicion can you arrest them if it turns out that no crime was committed. The suspect has an obligation to stop because the contact is based on more than mere suspicion, correct?

Look up and re-read the definitions of "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause". When RS turns into PC is when I can articulate the difference(s).

Btw, if "no crime was committed", why would you arrest someone???

IMO, you should go back and contact whomever it was that trained you in the first place...

[cua68]

Retdetsgt, thank you for your response. It certainly helped to clarify some of my confusion. Under Terry v. Ohio don't people have to stop for reasonable suspicion (meaning you have a belief that a crime has, is, or about to occur) and necessary force can be used to affect the detention? I understand people don't have to stop for the police, but if certain circumstances make one believe that a crime has possibly been committed they need to stop. If they don't stop this only furthers your suspicion and probable cause for arrest, correct? Sorry if it seems like I'm being repetitive I just seem to have a hard time with this. It would be much easier if it were just black and white.

[cua68]

Samuel, thank you for your response as well. When I said no crime was committed I mean that you attempted to stop someone on RS. Subsequently, they run and you give chase leading to them being caught. Upon further investigation it's determined that there is no evidence for the RS to progress to an arrest. Because they ran does that still constitute some type of fleeing charge even though they committed no crime? I definitely wish more time was spent on this. Again thank you for the responses, much appreciated.

[retdetsgt]

R If they don't stop this only furthers your suspicion and probable cause for arrest, correct? Sorry if it seems like I'm being repetitive I just seem to have a hard time with this. It would be much easier if it were just black and white.

Arrest for what? If there was no crime, then there was no crime. I can detain someone until I determine if a crime was committed, but once I determine there wasn't, I have to let everyone go. This happens constantly out there in the real world. But the 5th Amendment applies to any contact with the police.

[cua68]

Arrest for interfering with your detainment and investigation by running. I understand that they have a right to silence and not to talk with the police. But if in good faith and with reasonable suspicion you attempt to make a stop to determine criminal activity and they resist or run, wouldn’t this get them charged with a crime. Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed to detain someone temporarily. Even if no PC for an arrest on the original stop was later found. I think I might be thinking too much into this and this might be cause for all of my confusion.

[retdetsgt]

Arrest for interfering with your detainment and investigation by running.

Feel free to search for a statute saying that's a crime.

[cua68]

Ok. Again, thanks for your time and help .

[Samuel]

You were given a gun, badge, and powers of arrest ("police officer") but no training in these areas??? The things you are asking are basic LE 101 topics... What agency were you with that didn't provide this necessary information? Among the other things you are asking, you should also know whether or not your local/state criminal/penal statutes/codes have a section on 'resisting, delaying, obstructing'...

[lawduck]

Retdetsgt, thank you for your response. It certainly helped to clarify some of my confusion. Under Terry v. Ohio don't people have to stop for reasonable suspicion (meaning you have a belief that a crime has, is, or about to occur) and necessary force can be used to affect the detention? I understand people don't have to stop for the police, but if certain circumstances make one believe that a crime has possibly been committed they need to stop. If they don't stop this only furthers your suspicion and probable cause for arrest, correct? Sorry if it seems like I'm being repetitive I just seem to have a hard time with this. It would be much easier if it were just black and white.

§ 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows
is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.


In Texas if you have enough to detain someone (where you can say "come here")and they run from you, it's evading.


You could articulate your reasoning behind wanting to pat them down and using the plain feel doctrine to get into their pants. But I wouldn't go sticking my hands in their pants without probable cause (which you can get from talking to them) or something from the plain feel doctrine.

[retdetsgt]

§ 38.04. EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION. (a) A person
commits an offense if he intentionally flees from a person he knows
is a peace officer attempting lawfully to arrest or detain him.


In Texas if you have enough to detain someone (where you can say "come here")and they run from you, it's evading.

Count your blessings. In Oregon, we have nothing like that. In fact, the resist arrest statute specifies "lawful" arrest. I've never personally had a problem with that, but it always struck me odd that they felt it important to put that in.

[BJJVad]

I believe that I have a very basic knowledge of these concepts, as I was a seasonal police officer in Delaware and was given some instruction in these areas, but still do not grasp them in their entirety.