Probable Cause and the Bill of Rights
Probable cause is a foundational legal standard in the United States that protects individuals from arbitrary government actions, particularly regarding searches and arrests. Established by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, it mandates that no search or arrest warrant may be issued without probable cause, defined as a reasonable belief that evidence of a crime exists at the location to be searched or that a person has committed a crime. This requirement was a response to historical abuses of power in England, where officials could conduct indiscriminate searches, often justified by vague claims.
The concept of probable cause ensures that warrants are not based on mere suspicion but on specific facts presented to a magistrate, who must use common sense in assessing the situation. In certain circumstances, law enforcement may conduct searches without a warrant if they have reasonable suspicion or if exceptions apply, such as during emergencies or with consent. The U.S. Supreme Court has continually addressed how probable cause should be evaluated, emphasizing a pragmatic approach that considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding each case. Overall, the principle of probable cause serves as a critical safeguard for individual rights against unwarranted government intrusion.
On this Page
Probable Cause and the Bill of Rights
Description: In the scenario that a search or seizure warrant is justifiedthe Fourth Amendment states no search or arrest warrants “shall issue, but upon probable cause”
Relevant Amendment: Fourth
Significance: The probable cause requirementan important concept in search and seizure lawprotects individuals against government abuse of its power to seize evidence and arrest people suspected of a crime.
In Great Britain, a series of statutes beginning in the fourteenth century authorized government officialsand in some cases, private individualsto search for and seize certain items. The power to search and seize was not effectively limited, and many abuses occurred in terms of indiscriminate searches and seizures. For example, the Licensing Act of 1662 authorized almost unlimited searches and seizures by the king’s secretaries of state in their efforts to seek out any seditious or unlicensed publication of books and pamphlets. General warrants and writs of assistancesome of the most obnoxious forms of unlimited search and seizure powerwere used extensively by England to enforce its mercantile taxation policies and investigate illegal smuggling activities in the American colonies.
The U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent the federal government from using the much-hated general warrants and writs of assistance. The requirement of probable cause ensured warrants for searches and seizures would not be issued based on only vague claims that they were necessary for the protection of the state or its citizens.
The Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement was not intended to prevent or frustrate law enforcement. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the determination of probable cause is pragmatic inquirythe outcome of which is dependent on the specific facts in each case. In each case, probable cause should be determined using a practical, nontechnical approach in examining the facts. Whether probable cause exists in a case involving a warrant turns on the question of whetherbased on the totality of the circumstances disclosed in the warrant applicationa magistrate using common sense could conclude there was a fair probability that evidence sought would be found in the place to be searched or that the person sought committed the alleged crime. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Illinois v. Gates (1983), when a warrant is used, an appellate court should give great deference to the magistrate’s determination of probable cause so long as it has a substantial basis in facts disclosed in the affidavits supporting the request for a warrant.
In some cases, probable cause is also the standard used by judges in determining whether action taken by the police without a warrant was an unreasonable search or seizure. In a warrantless circumstance, the determination of probable cause turns on the question of whether trustworthy facts and circumstances within a police officer’s knowledge at the time they acted would lead a person of reasonable caution to conclude that a crime was being or had been committed or that the evidence sought may be found in the place searched (Draper v. United States, 1959). In Terry v. Ohio (1968), the Supreme Court authorized brief warrantless detention and, in some circumstances, a limited search of individuals based on reasonable suspicion. Subsequently, the Supreme Court reemphasized in most cases when a finding of probable cause is required, the facts must establish the presence of more than a reasonable suspicion.
Examples of when a warrant is not legally required to execute a search include:
- Searches that accompany a lawful arrest
- Consent to a search given by a person with the authority to authorize this consent
- Emergencies where officers are alerted to respond
- “Hot pursuit” of a fleeing suspect
- A situtation where destruction of evidence is imminent
- Vehicle searcheswhen the officer has probable cause to believe that illicit contraband is present
- When the evidence is in plain view
In Kansas v. Glover (2020), the Supreme Court ruled a police officer can infer that a person driving a vehicle is its owner. As such, in the event of a traffic violation, the police officer can halt the vehicle and check the credentials of the driver. This can happen even though the officer could not have been absolutely certain beforehand that the driver was indeed the actual owner. A punitive measure issuedsuch as a traffic citationremains valid. The case began in 2018 when a Kansas police deputy observed a truck and made a rountine licence checkhis revealed its owner and driver, Charles Glover, had a revoked license. Glover later challenged his citiation in arguing that at the origination of the incident, the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion that he was driving the vehicle. As such, Glover argued that his Fourth Amendment rights requiring probable cause had been violated.
The case made its way through the Kansas District and Supreme Courts before the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in 2019. The majority decision stated the police deputy had acted in common sense in making a reasonable inference that it was Glover driving the vehicle in the first instance. The check that confirmed it was Glover was therefore also lawful.
Bibliography
Bieber, Christy. "What Is Probable Cause? Legal Definition and Examples." Forbes, 31 May 2024, www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/criminal-defense/probable-cause/. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.
"Kansas v. Glover." SCOTUSBlog, 2024, www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kansas-v-glover/. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.
"Search & Seizure Supreme Court Cases." Justia, 2024, supreme.justia.com/cases-by-topic/search-seizure. Accessed 30 Aug. 2024.