Reference no: EM132168121

Reply back to this 150 words.

The Constitution does not define nor provide examples of what constitutes probable cause. Probable cause is less proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is a higher standard the prosecutor must meet in order to convict a defendant (2016).

An official or police officer seeking a warrant, must establish probable cause to the satisfaction of a judge. They must swear or affirm that all fact are true in nature supporting probable cause, and must describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. If a search warrant fails to meet those requirements it is invalid.

The following court cases show two ways in which probable cause was interpreted. (Maryland v. Pringle): Probable cause is a substantial suspicion, based on all the circumstances, that someone is a criminal (Rutledge, 2010). (Illinois v. Gates): lower courts should stop using a law school approach to analyzing probable cause issues and simply consider how an officer in the field would understand the situation he or she confronted (Rutledge, 2010).

The exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search, seizure, or interrogation is not admissible in a subsequent criminal trial (2016). The Supreme Court in the case of Weeks v. United States (1914) adopted the exclusionary rule, holding that illegally seized evidence ordinarily could not be used in criminal trial (Gann, 2014).

There are five exceptions to the exclusionary rule: Collateral use- the exclusionary rule applies only to evidence seized by police and used in criminal trials.

The exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence seized by private parties. Attenuation-states that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment may be presented at a trial if an adequate amount of time or a later event eliminates the taint of the violation that led to the initial procurement of the evidence.

Independent source-if evidence is procured by means of an independent source unconnected with any previous illegal search or seizure, the evidence will be admissible at trial. Inevitable discovery- may be used at trial if police can prove that they would have eventually found the evidence in a legal manner despite their previous illegal procurement. Good faith-illegally obtained evidence may be admissible in a criminal trial if the officers acted in good faith (2014).

For and officer to conduct a stop he must have reasonable suspicion that an individual is about to commit a crime or has already committed a crime. Once the stop has taken place an officer can frisk if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. For an officer to make an arrest he must have probable cause to do so.

Gann, S. M. (2014). Exclusionary rule, exceptions to. In J. S. Albanese, Wiley series of encyclopedias in criminology and criminal justice: The encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice.