Reasonable Suspicion - Probable Cause

[Parminio]

I just finished a chapter on these two topics, and I'd like to see if I've got this right by giving a hypothetical based on what I've read:

You're driving along on patrol and come up behind a car. It's not weaving or driving erratically or anything, but as you come to a stop sign, you notice his brake lights don't work.

So you pull him over for having no brake lights. When you get to the drivers window and ask for his information, you think you smell alcohol. Now, at this point, you have reasonable suspicion that they man is driving while drunk. As the man hands you his license and such, you look past him and see what appears to be the top of a small liquor bottle sticking out of the other side of his seat. Now at this point, you have probable cause to test him for DUI.

Is that right or wrong?
Thanks in advance for posting.

[retdetsgt]

Yes, you have PC.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

You're driving along on patrol and come up behind a car. It's not weaving or driving erratically or anything, but as you come to a stop sign, you notice his brake lights don't work.
Egads!!! Surely a calamity awaits.

So you pull him over for having no brake lights. When you get to the drivers window and ask for his information, you think you smell alcohol.
Po-po lesson #1: Wrong. Alcohol is odorless. What you smell are the congeners of the drinks.

Now, at this point, you have reasonable suspicion that they man is driving while drunk.
Po-po lesson #2: Wrong. You have reasonable suspicion to believe he's been consuming alcoholic beverages. The mere odor does not automatically equate to "drunk". Most, if not all states, it's against the law to drive while impaired. Impaired comes WAY before "drunk".

As the man hands you his license and such, you look past him and see what appears to be the top of a small liquor bottle sticking out of the other side of his seat. Now at this point, you have probable cause to test him for DUI.
Po-po lesson #3: Wrong. You need probable cause for an arrest, not to do SFTS's. We also need to further establish how you recognize the bottle as being a liquor bottle.

Is that right or wrong?
That would be......wrong. See above.

Thanks in advance for posting.
You're welcome. That'll be $395 for filling in the blanks for you. All these questions you need to be asking your instructor, not us.

[Ne_Smokey_Bear]

Probable cause is needed in order to arrest or search without warrant. You have a lot of reasonable suspicion there. You conduct sobriety tests based on reasonable suspicion. From that you can develop probable cause to make an arrest based off of your observations.

There are a lot of containers out there that can look like an open alcohol container so don't just go off of that. You can always ask the driver to see the contents of the bag.

[Parminio]

Probable cause is needed in order to arrest or search without warrant. You have a lot of reasonable suspicion there. You conduct sobriety tests based on reasonable suspicion. From that you can develop probable cause to make an arrest based off of your observations.

There are a lot of containers out there that can look like an open alcohol container so don't just go off of that. You can always ask the driver to see the contents of the bag.

That makes a lot of sense. I understand now. Thank you!

[Joeyd6]

Kudos to Sgt. Slaughter for that response. On point and brief. But $395 seems low....your answer was worth much more, clsoer to $750.

[Cat_Doc]

I don't know if this is just old school, but I stilll remember it from the academy,

Reasonable Suspicion: That which would lead a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer to believe that;

1. A crime is about to occur, or
2. A crime is in progress, or
3. A crime has just occurred.

Probable Cause: Combination or totality of circumstances which leads a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer to believe the elements of the crime have been met and the subject under suspicion did commit the crime.

[BJJVad]

Ok, so my question is:

What can you do with a Criminal Justice degree, that you can't do without?

[Sgt. Slaughter]

Ok, so my question is:

What can you do with a Criminal Justice degree, that you can't do without?

Enter the now-defunct "Ask A Criminal Justice Student" section.

[Parminio]

I don't know if this is just old school, but I stilll remember it from the academy,

Reasonable Suspicion: That which would lead a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer to believe that;

1. A crime is about to occur, or
2. A crime is in progress, or
3. A crime has just occurred.

Probable Cause: Combination or totality of circumstances which leads a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer to believe the elements of the crime have been met and the subject under suspicion did commit the crime.

Reasonable suspicion has never been defined with any precision by any court. In the textbook and classroom, the only ruling listed is Alabama v. White which states only that RS is a lower level of certainty that PC. That's it. Nothing else is defined.

Probable Cause is defined by the Supreme Court as more than bare suspicion; it exist when "the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably turstworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the beleif that an offense has been or is being committed." (emphasis added)

So, as you can see, what we're reading in the books and being taught in class is not the same thing that you were taught at the academy and are practicing in real life. There's quite a difference. That's why I asked the question; to make sure what I was learning from the books and teachers is what you officers have to do in real life. I thought that's why this forum was here: to answer the questions of regular people with your own experience in the field.

I appologize if I was wrong on that count.

[Cat_Doc]

Reasonable suspicion has never been defined with any precision by any court. In the textbook and classroom, the only ruling listed is Alabama v. White which states only that RS is a lower level of certainty that PC. That's it. Nothing else is defined.

Probable Cause is defined by the Supreme Court as more than bare suspicion; it exist when "the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they had reasonably turstworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the beleif that an offense has been or is being committed." (emphasis added)

So, as you can see, what we're reading in the books and being taught in class is not the same thing that you were taught at the academy and are practicing in real life. There's quite a difference. That's why I asked the question; to make sure what I was learning from the books and teachers is what you officers have to do in real life. I thought that's why this forum was here: to answer the questions of regular people with your own experience in the field.

I appologize if I was wrong on that count.

Where do you see "quite the difference" between the examples?

In retrospect, I erred in not clarifying that reasonable suspicion in my example is defined as the grounds to stop (detain) and investigate, while probable cause justifies charging (arresting) the subject.

This is a common mistake when someone already knows what they are talking about and didn't articulate for the novice. My bad.


And, how do you define the difference, if any, between reasonable and prudent as opposed to reasonable caution? I'd like to know the difference from your perspective since you added emphasis...?

Open for discussion.

[Parminio]

Here is his PC: Probable Cause: Combination or totality of circumstances which leads a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer to believe the elements of the crime have been met and the subject under suspicion did commit the crime. Note that he says "Officer".

The actual definition from the Supreme Court is "Man of reasonable caution".

Now, that is a huge difference. It means, according to the Supreme Court, that what an officer thinks is pretty much moot. He has to have the same evidence that would convince any 'man off the street', not just him by his own experience.

The only time an officers own experience is the guideline is in suspicion, not cause. (That is, of course, according to the books, teachers and the Supreme Court of the United States, but apparently not to that particular police officer.)

Added: I'm trying to understand the real world application vs. what they're teaching us. That is: where is the line between the two in reality. That's the part I'm struggling with.

[Cat_Doc]

Here is his PC: Probable Cause: Combination or totality of circumstances which leads a reasonable and prudent law enforcement officer to believe the elements of the crime have been met and the subject under suspicion did commit the crime. Note that he says "Police Officer".

The actual definition from the Supreme Court is "Man of reasonable caution".

Now, that is a huge difference. It means, according to the Supreme Court, that what an officer thinks is pretty much moot. He has to have the same evidence that would convince any 'man off the street', not just him by his own experience.

The only time an officers own experience is the guideline is in suspicion, not cause. (That is, of course, according to the books, teachers and the Supreme Court of the United States, but apparently not to that particular police officer.)

Parminio,

You may refer to me as Cat_Doc, Cat, Doc, or Sir, but it is rude and offensive to speak of me in the third person.

And, you did not answer my question which was based upon your erroneous conclusion that prudent and cautious meant two different things. They are one and the same.

Additionally, you came to Ask A Cop to inquire about our (cops) understanding between the differences of Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.

Please avoid sophism if you want to engage in an intelligent and educational discourse with the very men and women who are doing the job you are inquiring about on a daily basis.

Thanks, and again, open for discussion.

[Sgt. Slaughter]

That's because you're tried by a jury of your peers, not a dozen well-trained police officers.

[Parminio]

Sir CatDoc,

You question was moot as it wasn't and isn't the issue at all. There is no difference between the words you posted, but there is between the noun that those words were decribing. There's a difference between the officer and the regular man that the words describe. That was my whole question.

Sorry to offend.

So, Sgt. S., it's actually that you use your exprience with the knowledge that it will be the factor that actually informs the jury of the probable cause. Right?