Probable Cause

[scott715us]

Before we answer you, why don't you tell us what you believe probable cause is, and how it is used in Law enforcement. Then tell us what specific opposition there is to it.

If you are referring to searches; searches generally cannot be made without a warrant, and warrants not issued unless there is probable cause. Warrants are required UNLESS there is an exception to the search warrant requirement;

1. Detention Short of Arrest: Stop-and-Frisk

2. Search Incident to Arrest

3. Vehicular Searches (Terry)

4. Consent Searches

5. Border Searches

6. ''Plain View.''

Minus these and a few other reasons, police officer cannot search without a warrant. PC is required to obtain a warrant.

PC generally refers to making an arrest. Without PC, how would you imagine an arrest be made?

Actually vehicular searches can fall under Terry or Carroll Doctrine...

[txinvestigator1]

Actually vehicular searches can fall under Terry or Carroll Doctrine...

Yeah, I missed that doctrine. ;)

[Group9]

I am just curious of what your arguments are in support of the use of probable cause. I am trying to write a term paper on the issue, and I would love to hear feedback from the people who actually use it. There are so many arguments against the use of it, I wanted to write a paper in support of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This is about the best argument I can come up with in support of the use of probably cause to make arrests, seizures, or searches. I would suggest that the people who are against the use of probable cause as a standard by law enforcement need to start out by rebutting our founding fathers, and pointing out where they were wrong.

[RO56]

I guess I did not phrase my question properly. Sorry. I was moreso meaning, there are many people out there arguing against the practice of probable cause. That it is too subjective, and often takes away individuals rights. (They believe police abuse it, it is not used properly, etc...) The question...Since people are opposing it, and are debating whether or not it should even be admissiable as a means to stop and search someone, as a police officer, or individual involved in the law, what are your arguments for probable cause? Not why do you use it now, but why do you feel it is effective, and why do you feel it should be kept as a police practice?

Do the chickens have large talons? Because I don't understand a word you just said.

Translation: I don' think you have any idea what you are asking.

As far as I know, there is no widespread argument against the probable cause standard for arrest or search & seizure. Primarily because (a) it PROTECTS you and (b) it is required by our Constitution, which is one of the founding documents of this country.

Probable cause is an evidenciary standard that is required by our Constitution. It protects people. It does not hurt them. It actually hinders the police, not you.

Without the PC requirement to justify an arrest or a search and/or seizure, the government (police) would be able to do nearly anything they wanted WITHOUT any justification whatsoever.

Anybody opposed to PC being required as a basis for arrest or search & seizure would have to be opposed to EVERYTHING ELSE contained in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights (e.g., Freedom of Speech, Religion, Assembly, protection against cruel & unusual punishment, self-incrimination, double jeopardy, etc.) - which would be ignorant.

The Constitution and it's amendments guarantees rights, freedoms, and protections for YOU. Why would anybody argue against that?