Re: Probale Cause

More | Report Post

Let’s start with defining Probable Cause in a nut shell, it
means something less than certainty, but more than mere
suspicion, speculation, or possibility. The US Supreme Court
defined PC to search as a fair probability that contraband
or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,
See Illinois v. Gates.

This can get lengthy not knowing the totality of
circumstances from the officers point of view as a
reasonable trustworthy government actor.

Being a former fed-agent I can say with a fair degree of
certainty that the officer made a snap decision based on a
hunch-more than likely to a degree less than certainty-but
to him enough to warrant further investigation, his
reasonable suspicion. Remember he's not there interpret the
law, only to enforce it, the key question is did anyone of
these individuals collectively or individually break a law
that would lead the officer to believe that a crime was
committed or about to be committed and/or did they bear
fruits of a crime? Officers can approach a subject and
request an ID and you must surrender said ID, however in
doing so, you are affectively now "seized" because any
reasonable and prudent person would feel that they were not
free to go-in essence the submission to an officer's show of
authority to restrain the subjects freedom of movement. If
this case, an ID was produced satisfactorily and (assuming)
there was no wants/warrants, then that "should" have been
the end of it-any further intrusion now borders on
deprivation of rights under the color of law unless the
officer can articulate his position on why did continued
with his investigation. Additionally the "pat down" or frisk
is not meant to discover evidence of a crime, rather the
discovery of a weapon or weapons. If it extends beyond that,
its scope is now outside "Terry" and its' fruits will be
suppressed. However, if the officer can immediately identify
the contents of his pocket without further manipulation then
its warrantless seizure is justified (couple the officers
knowledge with him seeing a pipe, add that to the what he
believes was contraband and wala...) The search incident to
arrest was legal, which includes the cell phone. Search
incident to arrest gives the officer wide latitude to search
containers (open or closed) which include cell phones in
some circuits (see fifth circuit ruling US v. Finley). This
does not extend to legal traffic stops wherein a traffic
citation is issued. One does not have to allow a search of a
mobile conveyance if asked by an officer, unless of course
you consent of course!

There is allot here going on and without knowing the
totality of circumstances it difficult to answer your
question fully. Some is subjective while others are
objective.

There is also an issue of profiling (in my opinion) based on
observations that the individuals appeared to be to young,
its assumed that the tobacco store owner properly ID'd the
customer. This issue is a completely separate and touchy
subject, do not believe me look at the argument being made
in AZ in regards to its law now under appeal. You can pretty
much make an arguement for just about anything in law.

Jason
BSCJ/MCJ (Boston University)

On 10/02/09, April Bittle wrote:
> Three young men go into a "Tobacco Store" (other items
> sold similiar to a small 7/11 store. Drive 1/2 to get
> gasoline. While one pumped gas, other two in car. Police
> officer approached car and said he said them come out of
> the "Tobacco Store", and they look young. He wanted to
> see ID. Only one man had ID. Ordered two men out of
> car. Upon getting out of car, officer saw a "pipe".
> Officer patted down men. On one man found marajuana and
> arrested him. Officer searched vehicle and belongs in
> vehicel. Found more drugs in lap top bag. Read phone
> messages.
> Was anything about the above lega? The officer never
> asked even if they purchased anything from the "Tobacco
> Store". By the way, one man did show ID and was over 20.
> The other two men were 18, and 20.
> Thank you in advance for clarification.