Probable Cause

[CJAgirl]

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.

[Switchback]

Ok... my first argument for using probable cause:

IT'S REQUIRED.


I can only think of one reason to not get probable cause... I have too much money and want to be relived of it via a civil suit.


Perhaps, I am not understanding your question. Otherwise, you may have drawn the short straw on assignments.

[Taxx]

Ok... my first argument for using probable cause:

IT'S REQUIRED.


I can only think of one reason to not get probable cause... I have too much money and want to be relived of it via a civil suit.


Perhaps, I am not understanding your question. Otherwise, you may have drawn the short straw on assignments.

LOL!!!!!

[txinvestigator1]

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.

Probable Cause is not a arguable topic in the manner you ask.

http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...probable+cause

[RO56]

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.

I'm completely against "probable cause". I think it's BS. In fact, I think the whole US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a bunch of baloney. I think I should be able to search your home or person, stop you on the street and harass you, tap your phones, read your mail, obtain your medical records, and detain you as long as I want WITHOUT having probable cause ... :rolleyes:

[Big Sexy]

I think I should be able to search your home or person, stop you on the street and harass you, tap your phones, read your mail, obtain your medical records, and detain you as long as I want WITHOUT having probable cause ...

You mean we need probable cause to do that?? :confused:
Looks like BIG SEXY has some splaining to do.

[RO56]

You mean we need probable cause to do that??
Looks like BIG SEXY has some splaining to do.

ROTF.

Rep owed (gotta spread the rep around first -- NOT to be confused, of course, with members who spread their LEGS for rep tarts around THIS place ... )

[LA5150]

There are so many arguments against the use of it...

From whom, exactly? And what are these arguments? :confused:

[Norm357]

Ok... my first argument for using probable cause:

IT'S REQUIRED.


I can only think of one reason to not get probable cause... I have too much money and want to be relived of it via a civil suit.


Perhaps, I am not understanding your question. Otherwise, you may have drawn the short straw on assignments.

LOL:D

[Rad Diver]

Holy cow, you guyz are saying we actually have rights?

I better go get an attorney, cause that whole constitution thing I thought was being constipated. And, the bill of rights thingie was actually a charge to be right.

Uh oh, I think I may be in some t-r-o-u-b-l-e :eek:










Ok, just bustin your chops. I don't violate peeps rights, well.......:D

[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.

There have been a zillion topics here on probable cause. The "search" button is your research buddy.

[CJAgirl]

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?

[acreature]

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...)

These same people feel police abuse every tool they have. OC spray, ASP, Tasers, Pretextual Stops, License Checkpoints, etc etc

They are called, dare I say ............ Liberals.

[txinvestigator1]

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?

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?

[SpacemanSpiff]

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?

Let's say you're walking home, and all of a sudden you're the victim of an armed robbery as a man jumps out of the alley wearing dark clothing and a baseball hat and then takes off running down the street.

I respond to the scene... Would you or would you not want me to stop the next guy I see in the vicinity wearing dark clothing and a ball cap? If I find him, do you or do you not think I am correct in stopping him, cuffing him and patting him down for weapons, and seeing what he is doing in the area matching the description of a suspect in an armed robbery that just occurred?

Probable cause is not a starting point - it is an ending point with which Police have the grounds to make an arrest. It starts with reasonable suspicion, the thought that the person you are dealing with could be involved in criminal activity (i.e, a person matching the description of an armed robbery suspect in the immediate area), and then through the course of investigation builds to probable cause (i.e, recovering a weapon or stolen property off the suspect, or positive identification of the suspect by the victim).

If we could not use probable cause as a basis for arrest, would you prefer that Police could only make arrests based on plain view of criminal activity? Police cannot be everywhere and see everything all the time...