Probable has become warped. It does not mean “he said she said” by with some alleged victim with an agenda! that is not probable cause. They should give lessons to judges so they understand
Thank you so much I was looking for a case and you gave me one. I feel my fourth amendment was violated I was pulled over for a bad light. Just a simple traffic violation. But once he ran my name it showed prior convictions. Tricked my wife that he wanted to show her the bad light. When he returns he says he is searching the vehicle. I dont like cops so I was giving him lip. There was notting in the car. He found an empty lunch sandwich bag. With no residue just a bag. He gave me a drug paraphernalia ticket I feel because of my past it was going to stick. Well know I am fighting a 600 dollar ticket and a 90 days drug course. I fell that if it was someone that had no priors I would just be a sandwich bag. But me since 8 have priors it becomes drug paraphernalia. The more I look into it I my fourth amendment was violated and just on that I feel the case should be dismissed. Also I went to prison in 2001 at the age of 18 did some mistakes. Been free since 2005. No new charges not even a traffic ticket. So to get falsely accused of a crime is wrong. I can just imagine how many people just except this abuse
It's sad how police just violate people to get their money, they make up reasons to stop you and then make up charges to arrest and impound your vehicle, they like to charge people with interfearing with government operations and resisting arrest, etc.,our judicial system is corrupt.
It is my belief that many more arrests involve warrantless "probable cause" assessments, made by police in ferretting out crimes but not based on the cool assessments of a neutral magistrate. Probable cause should occur before a search or seizure, not be based on evidence gathered after the search or seizure.
Transcript: In the United States Constitution’s 4th Amendment, we're introduced to the concept of probable cause as that amendment states that “no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause,” but what exactly does that mean? Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't define it and for much of our nation's history judges, law enforcement, and lawyers have struggled to interpret the idea. In this presentation we'll look into the development of probable cause, its purpose, and what law enforcement needs to do to establish probable cause for an arrest or search warrant. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government; also, before a search warrant can be issued, the government must demonstrate probable cause to believe a crime was committed and that the proposed search area contains the fruits of illegal activity. A probable cause determination balances the right to liberty with the government's interest in preventing and investigating crime. It gives law enforcement flexibility in enforcing the law and protects people from rash and unreasonable interferences with privacy and unfounded charges of crime. Mere suspicion on the part of the police is insufficient. Law enforcement can establish probable cause through live sworn testimony or by a detailed affidavit describing why a warrant is necessary. In 1925 the United States Supreme Court decided Carroll v. United States and provided the contours of probable cause. In that case, the defendants were convicted of violating the National Prohibition Act after police searched their vehicle and discovered that they were transporting 68 quarts of whiskey and gin. In determining that the search was supported by probable cause, the Court wrote, “good faith is not enough to constitute probable cause: that faith must be grounded on facts within the knowledge of the law enforcement agent which in the judgment of the court would make his faith reasonable.” The court further expanded on Carroll's definition of probable cause in Brinegar v. United States, another case that dealt with illegal transportation of liquor, in finding that the police had probable cause to arrest the defendant, who had a reputation for hauling liquor, after they noticed that the vehicle was heavily loaded. The court reasoned, “in dealing with probable cause we deal with probabilities. These are not technical, these are factual and practical considerations of everyday life, on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act.” Thus, probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge are sufficient to allow a reasonable person to reasonably believe that an offense has been or is being committed. The probable cause standard cannot be quantified into exact percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on circumstances. The court has even stopped state courts from adding more precise quantifications of probable cause. Many search warrants are based on information provided by confidential informants, one study finding that between 80 and 92 percent of search warrant applications were based on anonymous tips. Courts analyzed the totality of the circumstances to determine whether a tip is sufficient to establish probable cause. In Illinois v. Gates, the Bloomingdale Illinois Police Department received an anonymous letter that a local couple had been selling illegal drugs and that they had over $100,000 worth of drugs in their basement. The letter also described the couple's travels to Florida to procure illegal drugs and sell them in Chicago. A search warrant for their residence and automobile was then obtained from an Illinois judge, based on the Bloomingdale police officers affidavit setting forth the information in the anonymous letter. The Illinois State Supreme Court concluded that the anonymous tip could not justify probable cause because the letter lacked important details, and police weren't able to independently corroborate the letter’s details. The Supreme Court, however, disagreed, holding that the magistrate who issued the warrant had a substantial basis to conclude that probable cause existed. Justice Rehnquist wrote for the court that analyzing probable cause under the totality of the circumstances is not rigid but is fluid and flexible. Probable cause may be established even if a tip appears to be deficient. Anonymous accusations of illegal behavior may justify a search or seizure if police could corroborate some, even if not all, aspects of the anonymous informant’s predictions of a suspect’s illegal behavior. It appears that establishing probable cause based on the totality of the circumstances favors law enforcement because it's so malleable. Police have a great deal of leeway to demonstrate probable cause because police have so many ways to show that the circumstances demonstrate probable cause. Still, police may not use an anonymous tip alone to demonstrate probable cause, because an anonymous tip alone seldom demonstrates the informant’s basis of knowledge or an appropriate level of verification. Accordingly, police must take some time to corroborate an anonymous tip for it to lead to probable cause. Requiring probable cause for a search or arrest warrant has two aims: first, it protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures, and second, it promotes police transparency and accountability, as law enforcement officials must explain to a magistrate why they want to search or arrest someone. Probable cause is not a legal concept frozen in time, as it is proven to be flexible and has been recast throughout our history to ensure that its aims are achieved.
Probable cause is easy to explain in the US...it means if the cops think you are criminal or hiding illegal activities they can submit you to search and seizure on their terms without due process.,
Correct. Cops have qualified immunity, so even if they illegally search your car they can invoke the totality of circumstances doctrine by stating that your car smelled like weed and you were parked in a known drug trafficking area. Even it it's a bunch of hooey and made up lies.
It must be supported by evidence cops can’t search your house because they “think” they have to know beyond a reasonable doubt. Where not watching the same video
I have a case that I believe the police lied about probable cause to get warrant signed and I can’t afford a lawyer so I feel like they I don’t have a chance to protect my rights or where to go to to ask for free legal help
How long to report a violation of my 4th amendment. A few years ago the police broke my door and went in my home while warrantless. I was young , and alone in life and years later I can't get over it
Still have not found. The answer to this question , can the cops come in your home without a warrant, remove your drugs from the home and leave and not arrest you and you not be able to do anything about it?
someone i know had an altercation on his property with some trespassers. he called the police after he had attempted to shoot a pellet gun and throw rocks into the woods where the trespassers may or may not have been hiding to try and get them to leave. only calling the police after they still refused to leave. one of the trespassers claimed to have been struck with the pellet gun. however the police leave with one of the trespassers and the homeowner was never spoken too before the police left, about what happened or if they personally where in any trouble. The homeowner claims to have heard them mention a search warrant and one of the trespassers family members wanting to press charges for the person calming to be struck by the pellet gun. so now the homeowner is concerned that a search warrant will be performed along with an arrest. Is it reasonable to assume that could potentially happen? or unlikely given they where never charged detained or arrested during the initial altercation, or was that why? obviously they are concerned and not sure if they are innocent or just waiting to randomly be searched in their home. it seemed very confusing to me so i thought i would look up how it works but im still confused as well.. anyone have any advice?
Regarding arrests, would a identified victim providing just a statement of a felony assault be enough to justify probable cause. In other words, can a victims statements alone constitute PC for an arrest?
