FREE e-Newsletter
Important News - Hot Topics
Get them Now!

Features

Understanding Probable Cause

It's important to know what does and does not constitute PC for any given situation.

May 18, 2010  |  by Devallis Rutledge - Also by this author


Photo courtesy of Zuma Press.

Confusion. That's the best word to describe the state of understanding of the concept of "probable cause," which is often abbreviated as "PC." Not only is there widespread misunderstanding as to the meaning of the term, there's also a deeply entrenched practice among many law enforcement officers, lawyers, and judges of wrongly applying the probable-cause standard where it doesn't belong. Let's see if we can reduce the confusion.

"Probable Cause" Defined

The Fourth Amendment protects a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and it specifies that "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause." This makes it a constitutional requirement that search warrants and arrest warrants be based on probable cause. However, the Constitution does not define "probable cause" or give any examples of what does or does not constitute PC.

That task, as well as the job of figuring out when to apply the same standard to warrantless searches and seizures, was left for the courts to perform. Therefore, our body of law explaining and applying the concept is found in U.S. Supreme Court decisions, and sometimes in lower court decisions applying Supreme Court rulings.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has tried to describe the level of suspicion that would amount to PC, but it has always done so in general wording that leaves it up to courts to apply, case by case. In a 1949 opinion, the court said this about probable cause:

"The rule of probable cause is a practical, nontechnical conception. In dealing with probable cause, we deal with probabilities. These are not technical; they are the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers' knowledge and of which they have reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense has been or is being committed." (Brinegar v. U.S.)

The essence of this discussion is that it is not possible for judges and lawyers ("legal technicians") to assign some mathematical probability value for PC. Instead, the "technicians" must try to measure the facts of each case from a practical viewpoint and assess whether those facts would justify a reasonable officer in believing criminal activity was afoot.

Because some lower courts persisted in an effort to create a legal checklist of complicated "prongs" or "factors" to be evaluated, the Supreme Court made another effort to define PC in a 1983 case, saying the following:

"Perhaps the central teaching of our decisions bearing on the probable cause standard is that it is a practical, nontechnical conception. The process does not deal with hard certainties, but with probabilities. The evidence must be seen and weighed not in terms of library analysis by scholars, but as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement. Probable cause is a fluid concept, turning on the assessment of probabilities in particular factual contexts-not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." (Illinois v. Gates)

Translation: lower courts should stop using a law school approach to analyzing PC issues and simply consider how an officer in the field would understand the situation he or she confronted.

In a later decision, the court admitted that it had been unable to give a precise definition of probable cause but gave this guidance for lower courts engaged in assessments of probable-cause issues:

"The probable-cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances. The substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt, and that the belief of guilt must be particularized with respect to the person to be searched or seized." (Maryland v. Pringle)

Translation: PC is a substantial suspicion, based on all the circumstances, that someone is a criminal.

"Probable Cause" Illustrated

Perhaps the best way to understand probable cause is by comparing it with other levels of suspicion or proof that are more easily understood.

PC is much less than proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is the much higher standard the prosecutor must meet in order to convict a defendant.

PC is much less than "clear and convincing" proof, which is the higher standard that must be met as to certain legal rulings, such as whether jury challenges were improperly based on group bias.

PC is less than a "preponderance of the evidence" (meaning 50 percent-plus), which is the plaintiff's burden of proof to win a civil case.

But PC is something more than the "reasonable suspicion" required to justify a temporary investigative detention.

Tags: Fourth Amendment, Search and Seizure, U.S. Supreme Court Cases


Comments (8)

Displaying 1 - 8 of 8

aogden @ 7/25/2010 2:16 PM

I have a question. This was a great article, and really helped define the difference between PC, and reasonable suspicion. However, I was wondering whether or not the suspects permission plays into this at all. For example, if you engage a traffic stop, have the driver at your car, and ask if you can look through their purse or car.....if they say "yes", do you still need PC? Or, does the necessity of PC only come into play when they refuse to give consent?

In short, I guess i am asking this. On that traffic stop, you ask to search the car, and they say "no", IF you have PC, you can do it anyways. If you do not have legitimate PC, then you cannot, correct? But if they say "yes", you can search, even if you may not have enough to claim PC?

CognitiveConsistency @ 7/26/2010 8:34 PM

@aogden...

CognitiveConsistency @ 7/26/2010 8:38 PM

@aogden

you only need consent in the absence of PC, or to widen the scope of your search. In the absence of PC, either consent to search or a warrant is needed.

aogden @ 7/29/2010 12:31 PM

Thank you! That makes sense. I hope to start the academy within the next 6 months in my local area here, so any insight I can get now, I will gladly take!!

SAM551974D @ 8/22/2010 11:06 PM

The author of this article's books which I have and I read on a regular basis are another tool needed to stay fine tuned and updated...a very good investment indeed! Reading the state's criminal codes and traffic codes are also a plus in my case all 1000 pages worth and most come with the CD for better call up's and refinement...of focus and search! With actual case examples break out the coffee pot...just keep the cup away from pages :-) Good Luck and stay safe!

shirley herbert @ 11/27/2011 10:14 AM

I was required to relinquish my 25 year old firearm because I registered it subsequent the expiration date of the amnesty period given for registering older firearms here in Illinois. I turned the firearm over to officers at my local police station and several police officers recommended that I purchase a Ruger 380 which is a purse size firearm. At the gunshop the seller also indicated to me that the Ruger is a purse size firearm for the purse (I live alone in a rough area in Chicago). Well, Illinois doesn't allow carrying of firearms concealed or not so. If I purchased the Ruger 380 and registed it in accordance with our ordinance, the police would have a record that I own the registered firearm. So, could probable cause (my having a registed purse size firearm that I may be carrying in my purse (which is breaking the law)) be applied by a police officer to search my purse when I am out and about?

leslie smith @ 3/16/2012 8:46 AM

If there is a sexual crime committed and there is an accused, can I seek a warrant from the court to get a DNA sample of another person who I believe is the actual person that did the crime?

e jones @ 6/16/2014 11:35 AM

stopped with no traffic offense commited the officer said he pulled me over because he knew i was driving on a suspended liscence... is this a legal stop????? e.jones

Join the Discussion





POLICE Magazine does not tolerate comments that include profanity, personal attacks or antisocial behavior (such as "spamming" or "trolling"). This and other inappropriate content or material will be removed. We reserve the right to block any user who violates this, including removing all content posted by that user.

Other Recent Stories

Revisiting the "21-Foot Rule"
The so-called "21-Foot Rule" was born and soon spread throughout the law enforcement...
Leadership in Reverse
Every profession espouses the virtues of leadership. But what about followers, which are...

Get Your FREE Trial Issue and Win a Gift! Subscribe Today!
Yes! Please rush me my FREE TRIAL ISSUE of POLICE magazine and FREE Officer Survival Guide with tips and tactics to help me safely get out of 10 different situations.

Just fill in the form to the right and click the button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.

If POLICE does not satisfy you, just write "cancel" on the invoice and send it back. You'll pay nothing, and the FREE issue is yours to keep. If you enjoy POLICE, pay only $25 for a full one-year subscription (12 issues in all). Enjoy a savings of nearly 60% off the cover price!

Offer valid in US only. Outside U.S., click here.
It's easy! Just fill in the form below and click the red button to receive your FREE Trial Issue.
First Name:
Last Name:
Rank:
Agency:
Address:
City:
State:
  
Zip Code:
 
Country:
We respect your privacy. Please let us know if the address provided is your home, as your RANK / AGENCY will not be included on the mailing label.
E-mail Address:

Police Magazine