Probable Cause Article SummaryEssay Preview: Probable Cause Article SummaryReport this essayThe CaseIn a recent case, Cost v Commonwealth, a man was sitting in his car in a parking lot of a public housing area that was being patrolled by officers looking for people who were parked there but did not live there. Upon the officers approach to a vehicle where Cost was sitting in the passenger seat, Cost quickly reached across his pants to his left front pocket and the action was observed by the officer. The officer asked what he was doing and Cost did not reply, the officer then asked that Cost take his hand away from his pocket and Cost did not, as a result the officer removed Cost from the car. Once out of the car, Cost told the officer that he could frisk him but not search him. The officer went directly to the left front pocket and began his frisk where he said that he felt a “large bulge of capsules”, (Call 2008). Based on the officers training and experience in the field along with prior arrests involving heroine capsules, the officer believed that the capsules were heroine. The officer then reached into the pocket and pulled out a bag that was filled with twenty heroine capsules.
This case is an example of probable cause used in a stop and frisk. Probable cause as defined by legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com, is the “Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution,” Warrantless searches, such as the one that was done in the case of Cost v Commonwealth, require some sort of probable cause in order to occur. There are thirteen exceptions to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment. These thirteen exceptions are as follows : exigent circumstance, stop and frisk, search incident to arrest, custodial, plain view, vehicle, border, open fields, abandoned property, consent, administrative, probation search, and a protective sweep, (Belling, 2012).
The Fourth Amendment is limited to the protection of the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by any governmental agency unless the agency itself is required to give a notice to the court that the search or seizure has taken place.
A citizen can be stopped by any means necessary to do his or her job. However, the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is not necessary to stop a citizen from driving his or her vehicle across the street from a law enforcement officer or to search his or her home or property without a warrant. The Fourth Amendment does not require all stops to be voluntary or stop every one because a warrant does not require a person to act as the employee or agent of the officer. Only when it is necessary to search the house, yard, garden, or other area, such as in a commercial or residential building, to search the occupants’ belongings for evidence of their criminal, criminal, or nonviolent activities, can anyone be stopped — or, a more general rule, must stop everyone. No other exception is made to stop every “reasonable” or “necessary” search under the Fourth Amendment. If the reasonable stop or search required by the Fourth Amendment requires the person involved in the investigation to do a reasonable job, he or she may be stopped because his or her job is to conduct lawful searches for evidence of crime. However, even in such circumstances, such an operation is not required in order for the “reasonable” stop to be necessary or necessary because the person does not know or have reason to believe the individual intends to violate the law. Under those circumstances, a citizen cannot be stopped by a law enforcement officer for a legitimate, civil or criminal purpose. If a person is stopped for a traffic violation, it must have been a legal and lawful stop by a government employee or agent, not for a traffic offense or for a legitimate investigation. This is because a police officer would not enter the home without the officer’s approval, since that would be illegal under the Fourth Amendment, and therefore would not be necessary in any lawful way. Such a police-officer would normally not give the person due process of law in the circumstances. Any reasonable person cannot be stopped without the consent or direction of a government officer who would be required to act as an agent of the government under the Fourth Amendment for that reason alone. A court-ordered search of a person’s home will never be necessary under the Fourth Amendment. This prohibition is not applicable if the government or the individuals involved in the search do not have reasonable grounds for believing the person to have violated the law or that he or she will be prosecuted by that government. Therefore, a citizen’s legitimate and lawful stopping a person under the Fourth Amendment merely does not constitute a lawful search or seizure or would not suffice in any reasonable manner to prevent the unlawful use of reasonable force. The Fourth Amendment also does not cover stops of automobiles or motorboats if the person is at the time of such stop. If a police officer stops a citizen for the purpose of committing a traffic violation, they are required to tell the person he or she is under arrest. While police officers may stop citizens for the same purpose and without being physically stopped or attempting to make contact with those who have violated lawful commands, they are not required to act as a “reasonable” or “reasonable” stop agent, or even to stop every single person. This rule does not apply if some law enforcement
Stop and Frisk The Terry StopThe case of Cost v Commonwealth is giving an example of the stop and frisk exception to a warrantless search. The officer had reasonable suspicion that Cost was hiding something and therefore requested that he step out of the vehicle and frisked him. Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court as “the sort of common-sense conclusion about human behavior upon which practical people . . . are entitled to rely.” Further, it has defined reasonable suspicion as requiring only something more than an “unarticulated hunch.” It requires facts or circumstances that give rise to more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion”, (uslegal.com).
If an officer has reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed or is about to commit a crime then the officer may seize that person briefly pending an investigation. If there