What is the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"?

Question

How can I articulate these into rule statements?

Answer 1

reasonable suspicion: The idea that there is enough circumstational evidence where a person could make a logical conclusion or reasonable assumption that there is a crime being comited.

An example: a man stumbling to his car while leaving a bar. A man with thousands of dollars in small bills in a known drug house.

Probable Cause: The notion that there is enough evidence or circumstantial evidence to warrant a search.

I.E a person leaving a bank with a bag of money running. A dog smelling drugs in a car. A minnor buying alchol.

Basically to make it simple. Suspicion gives the officer the right to stop and question and individual. It does not give them the right to detain or search them. Cause gives the officer reason to detain and search someone.

to draw it out. A man stumbles out of a bar and walks to the car. The officer susupects he is drunk based on his behavior. He approaches the individual and smells aclchol. He know believes the man to be drunk and gives him a field sobrity test wich the man fails. He is aresseted.

He had reasonable suspicion to approach the man. Once he smelt alchol he had probable cause.

you see the difference.

Answer 2

Reasonable Suspicion Vs Probable Cause

Answer 3

Probable Cause Vs Reasonable Suspicion

Answer 4

The standard of probable cause is from the Constitution and applies to warrants to search. It takes some facts that indicate that they will find evidence of a crime in a specific place. For example, a person swears under oath that they were an invited houseguest of someone who stated they had robbed a bank, and showed the guest a sack full of money; that would be considered probable cause for a warrant to search that dwelling, and is far more than a reasonable suspicion.

A reasonable suspicion is more like a hunch, and is used to justify more-or-less routine searches under circumstances where a warrant wouldn't be practical. For example, the police observe a person on a hot day in a long overcoat, and want to stop and frisk them. Police experience of long overcoats being used to hide shotguns is the basis for the reasonable suspicion. A bank alarm going off just as a person comes running out of the bank would also be reasonable suspicion to think they might be involved. They could be a fleeing customer, but there's no time to ask a judge what they think.

Answer 5

Exact definitions vary by jurisdiction, but generally "Probable cause," means that from the known circumstantial or other evidence a reasonable person would conclude that it is more likely than not that a certain fact exists. "Reasonable suspicion" means that from the known circumstantial or other evidence a reasonable person would conclude that there is some degeree of liklihood that a certain fact exists. Probable cause is grounds for a warrant or for an arrest. Reasonable suspicion is not, but it may be grounds to further investigate or for a police officer to detain a person or vehicle for furtrher investigation.

Answer 6

this contrast most probably deals with searches and seizures of persons. start with the 4th amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

you have a right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. reasonable ones do not violate your constitutional rights. the us sup ct has a large body of law interpreting what is and is not reasonable. the reasonable suspicion case law began with Terry v. Ohio, in which the Supreme Court decided that when a policeman "observes unusual conduct" that leads him to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot" and that the suspicious person has a weapon and is presently dangerous to the policeman or others, he may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk"), to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, the policeman must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his actions. A vague hunch will not do.

in contrast probable cause has been interpreted as a higher standard. that is what's required to actually arrest or seize a person and take them into custody. The probable cause required for an arrest is different than that required for a search. Police have probable cause to make an arrest when "the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information" would lead a prudent person to believe that the arrested person had committed or was committing a crime. Probable cause to arrest must exist before the arrest is made: evidence discovered after the arrest may not be retroactively used to justify the arrest.

Answer 7

There exist a very fine line between the two:

Reasonable Suspicion would be seeing something that looks out-of-place or something uncommon and then become suspicious as to the true motive of the perpetrator.

Probably cause would be seeing something in action or about to occur and taking the legal steps of action or steps to prevent.

Answer 8

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What is the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause"?
How can I articulate these into rule statements?

Answer 9

Well a simple explaination would be something like:
Reasonable suspicion: 10% sure the person is doing something illegal
Probable Cause: 30% sure someone is doing something illegal.

It's the difference between someone looking "high" and someone smelling like weed.

Answer 10

Easy. Heres what you need to know https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5pXW25y-Z8