An Explanation of Probable Cause
The Westlaw dictionary defines probable cause as “reasonable grounds for the belief that the accused is guilty of a crime”. Although probable cause can be adequately defined, however, it is still very much a matter of subjection, as probable cause to one person might be mere suspicion to another.
Law enforcement officers rely on probable cause to make arrests, as it is the vehicle through which they conduct investigation in the field. For example, if a police officer suspects that contraband (illegal items) can be found in the car that they have stopped on the street, such as the smell of marijuana, this can constitute probable cause for them to search the vehicle.
Many people mistakenly believe that they can sue an officer for wrongful arrest if they are later acquitted of the charges. This is not so, as police officers can arrest based solely on probable cause, and not a definite knowledge of guilt.
In order for a police officer to establish probable cause, he must be able to pinpoint factual evidence which led them to the belief that the suspect was involved in the commission of a crime. He can’t defend his position by saying, “I just had a hunch that this guy was stealing jewelry.” He would have to see evidence that a jewelry theft took place before making an arrest.
Once a suspect is arraigned, his lawyer can bring up the issue of probable cause and present it before the presiding judge. If the judge doesn’t believe that probable cause existed at the time of the arrest, the suspect will be released from custody. Police officers have an obligation to make a good faith effort to ensure that probable cause exists, but if they make a mistake in the judge’s eyes, the judge can overrule their judgment.
Often, the judge will take into account what previous courts have ruled as probable cause. For example, let’s say that a robbery occurs at a jewelry store. The police arrive, and when they begin to search the area, they find a young man standing a block away on the street corner, sporting a brand new watch. The price tag remains on the band of the watch, and the suspect has no receipt for the merchandise. The police officer decides he has probable cause, and arrests the suspect.
Later, the judge has to decide whether or not the police officer actually had probable cause. Perhaps, two years ago, a case in the same court involved a similar circumstance in which the judge did find probable cause. The judge can then consider the previous case a precedent, and rule in favor of the police officer’s original conviction.
Probable cause is one aspect of the law that defense attorneys are consistently fighting. Just remember that if you are arrested for a crime, you shouldn’t rely on a lack of probable cause to get you out of hot water. Although judges have been known to rule in favor of the defendant based on a lack of probable cause, then are about 80% more likely to side with the arresting officer.
NOTE: Just because the judge finds a lack of probable cause does not mean that the suspect gets off scot-free. If, between the time of arrest and arraignment, the police have collected additional information that shows probable cause, the judge can dismiss the original case only to order that the defendant be re-arrested based on the new information.
