100 word response with 1 reference/intext citation
Due 2/7/2025
Charlize
There are many principles that shape the boundaries of law enforcement actions and criminal investigations. Reasonable suspicion is the legal standard that allows law enforcement officers to stop and detain a person, when there is factual evidence of criminal activity arising. This standard was established after a Cleveland police officer observed three men frantic in front of a store. The officer thought they were preparing for potential robbery, based on his training, and stopped them. He performed a quick pat-down, and found a concealed weapon on one of the suspects, leading to his conviction. Due to the
Terry v. Ohio (1968) case, officers can conduct a limited pat-down search for weapons if they suspect a threat to their safety. There must be facts to back up the stop, it can’t be based on a hunch. There are now traffic stops, airport security screenings, and school searches. Depending on the facts being used the court will decide how to interpret this concept. Officers tend to struggle distinguishing between reasonable suspicion and mere intuition. Probable cause is the standard required for arrests, search warrants, and some warrantless searches. Based on facts and circumstances, investigators can conclude if there is a fair probability that a crime has been committed, or that crime exists in a particular place. Osterburg and Ward states “Probable cause requires more than bare suspicion but less than evidence that would justify a conviction.” (2013, p. 157). There must be probable cause based on evidence for an officer to make an arrest. Officers are allowed to search a car without a search warrant if they have probable cause. For instance, if an officer smells THC or observes a beer bottle in the car, that is enough evidence for them to conclude an individual has driven intoxicated. Courts examine whether the officer’s belief was objectively reasonable under the circumstances. Inconsistent rulings on what constitutes sufficient probable cause is a big challenge due to varying interpretations by judges. Probable cause can also be challenged in suppression hearings. The principle Reasonable Expectation of Privacy, determines whether government action constitutes a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. This principle was put in place after the government convicted Katz of transmitting wagering information out of state. The government recorded Katz conversations inside a public phone booth, then Katz argued that it was a violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Katz won the case and the courts found it unlawful. Due to
Katz V. United States (1967), privacy extends beyond physical property. Privacy includes personal places where an individual has a subjective privacy that society deems reasonable. Courts struggle to define the limits of privacy in rapidly evolving areas. These principles set boundaries on officers authority, ensuring investigative actions comply with constitutional protections. In these areas, challenges will always arise as long as people and the earth evolve. The courts interpret these principles based on the totality of circumstances. The interplay between these principles shapes the balance between individual rights and public safety.
