Probable cause is a legal standard that determines whether police have enough factual grounds to justify making an arrest, obtaining a search warrant, or carrying out certain warrantless searches or seizures. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects people from being subject to unreasonable searches and seizures and requires that warrants only be issued when probable cause supports them.
This standard is stricter than mere suspicion or a hunch, but it does not require as much as it does to convict someone, which is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Courts assess whether the facts create a reasonable basis to believe that a person committed a crime or that evidence of a crime will probably be found in a particular place. The determination of probable cause is very fact-dependent and changes from one situation to another.
When Do the Police Need Probable Cause?
Law enforcement generally must have probable cause to arrest someone without a warrant, to ask a judge for arrest or search warrants, and to conduct certain warrantless searches or seizures when a recognized exception applies. Before issuing a warrant, a judge will review the officers’ supporting facts to ensure they meet the probable cause standard.
However, even if probable cause exists, it does not give police unlimited power to search or seize. Searches are normally confined to places specifically connected to the evidence outlined in the warrant or tied to a recognized exception.
What Evidence Can Establish Probable Cause?
There are many different types of evidence that police can rely on to establish probable cause, and courts review all available information together as part of the “totality of circumstances.”
Evidence may include:
- A police officer’s direct observations
- Statements from witnesses or victims
- Tangible physical evidence
- Admissions or statements by the suspect
- Surveillance videos or photographs
- Information supplied by confidential informants
Ultimately, the courts will look at the entire context when making their decisions about whether the standard of probable cause has been met.
Probable Cause vs. Reasonable Suspicion
Probable cause and reasonable suspicion are two separate legal thresholds that apply in different situations. Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard and lets an officer briefly stop and question someone when specific, objective facts suggest criminal activity might be taking place or about to take place.
If the officer reasonably suspects the person may be armed and dangerous, the law allows a limited pat-down for weapons. Probable cause requires a greater factual basis, as it’s what police usually need to make an arrest or seek a warrant from a judge.
Probable Cause vs. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
Probable cause sits far below the threshold required for a conviction in court. Its purpose is simply to check if officers are justified in taking steps like making arrests or seeking search warrants. Once a case goes to trial, prosecutors have the highest burden and must prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
This means it’s possible to be arrested lawfully when there’s probable cause, but later have the case dismissed or end up acquitted at trial.
What Happens If Police Did Not Have Probable Cause?
If an arrest, search, or seizure was conducted without adequate probable cause, that may give your lawyer the chance to challenge the legality of the action in court. Through a motion to suppress, a criminal defense lawyer can ask the judge to keep evidence out of the case that was found through an unconstitutional search or seizure. This is known as the exclusionary rule. Evidence discovered as a result of an unlawful search or seizure may also be excluded under the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.
However, not every error leads to automatic suppression. Courts may apply exceptions like the good-faith exception, which can apply when officers reasonably rely on a warrant or other legal authority that is later found defective, the independent source doctrine, the rule of inevitable discovery, or the attenuation doctrine, when the connection between the constitutional violation and the evidence has become sufficiently remote. When evidence is thrown out, prosecutors may be forced to reduce or even dismiss their case.
How Can a Criminal Defense Lawyer Challenge Probable Cause?
A criminal defense lawyer can carefully review the facts and police reports to determine whether law enforcement had enough information to meet the probable cause standard for an arrest, warrant, or search. This often involves filing a motion with the court to argue that the evidence the police relied on was incomplete, unreliable, based on mere suspicion, or overstated by officers.
A defense attorney may challenge the credibility of witnesses, point out flaws in how the information was gathered, or present alternative explanations for the facts observed.
Contact a Birmingham Criminal Defense Lawyer at Jaffe, Hanle, Whisonant & Knight, P.C. to Schedule a Free Consultation
If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges and have concerns about how police handled your arrest, search, or investigation, contact Jaffe, Hanle, Whisonant & Knight, P.C. Our experienced defense team can review your situation, assess whether your rights were violated, and explain your legal options for challenging probable cause or suppressing evidence. Call us at (205) 930-9800 to schedule a confidential consultation.