0
What else can I help you with?
What is reasonable cause?
Reasonable cause, or reasonable suspicion, is a legal term for enough evidence to suggest that someone might be carrying a weapon to warrant a pat down. Only weapons can be searched for based on reasonable cause.
What is the difference between a reasonable belief and a reasonable suspicion?
The questioner is confusing the wording of two legal concepts. The proper legal usage of the terms is REASONABLE SUSPICION and PROBABLE CAUSE. Reasonable Suspicion is/are those circumstances which arouse the instincts of a trained law enforcement officer to believe that a crime has been, or is about to be committed. Probably Cause leads from Reasonable Suspicion and is developed when a trained law enforcement officer determines that there is enough cause to believe that a crime has been committed and the person whom he can identify, or has in custody, is the one who committed it.
Does unprovoked flight plus high-crime area equals reasonable suspicion?
Unprovoked flight in itself is not enough to establish reasonable suspicion, but when coupled with being in a high-crime area, it may contribute to forming a reasonable suspicion for a stop or questioning by law enforcement. Other factors would also be considered in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists.
What is the cons of frisk and stop?
A stop and frisk, or a Terry stop, allows law enforcement or an agent acting under law enforcement authority, to pat down an individual's outer clothing.The law permitting this search is intended to (1) dispel the reasonable suspicion that the person is armed during a legal detainment (cop has a right to stop and detain the individual and the individual has an obligation to remain) or (2) to dispel any reasonably suspicion that the individual is carrying evidence of a crime or otherwise unlawful substances.The cons of a stop and frisk are in the testimony of law enforcement in stating their belief that there was in fact "a reasonable suspicion"; in particular, while a cop in most states will be able to justify a suspicion of an individual on the street being armed, it is often tricky for the cop to show reasonable suspicion the individual is carrying something illegal.It seems worthwhile to note here that the stop and frisk must be done during the lawful detainment of an individual, or else the cop must prove the individual consented to the search. If incriminating evidence is found, a defense can easily be raised that the defendant would not have consented. However, a political, if not legal issue, arises at this point as the defense lawyer would essentially be calling the cop a liar.The cons of a stop and frisk is that, in court, it is often the credibility of the defendant against the credibility of the cop that determines what happened during the Terry stop and why.Another View:The above answer contains incorrect information. ANY stop made by an officer is going to be based upon "reasonable suspicion." "Reasonable suspicion" of WHAT? The 'reasonable suspicion of the officer that the individual may have committed a crime! The courts have ruled that - FOR THE OFFICERS SAFETY - they may do a Terry Frisk on subjects they have stopped on the street for interrogation. The officer does NOT need to be able to articulate that they believed the subject was armed, their own self-protection during the stop of a suspected criminal is justification enough!
Can a policeman handcuff a person without probable cause?
Policemen can handcuff a person based only on reasonable suspicion, if the handcuffing is to avoid the destruction or tampering of suspected evidence. For example, if somebody has been reported lingering around parked cars for some time, this is enough suspicion to allow the officer to check them for burglary tools, even if a crime has not been reported/committed yet. Handcuffs are often used for the protection of the officer and no other reason. You do not need to be under arrest for handcuffs to be used. If the officer feels he may be at risk for any reason, handcuffs are considered a reasonable restraint.
Can police go into a backpack to search after the owner opens the backpack to hand illegal drugs to the officer?
Yes. A search may be conducted on reasonable suspicion and probable cause, but the simple fact that illegal drugs were proven to be in the backpack is more than enough reason that it needs to be checked to see if there are any more. Police are not required to take your word for it that you have given them the entire collection of contraband.
What is the vote of the court for Alabama vs white?
Vote is in favor of Alabama because the totality of the circumstances from the anonymous tipper was enough evidence to raise the burden of proof to Reasonable Suspicion; therefore they were able to stop her and ask to search her vehicle.
If you were being questioned by a police officer and your life was in immediate danger ie a tornado was coming could you run away?
Probably not. If the issue was serious enough to interest the police at the time, it is likely that you would be required to remain and answer. Usually something like this would be measured by a 'reasonable man' test, meaning 'how would a reasonable man act' in the situation. It is also likely that the court would find your action (running) to not be reasonable if a reasonable man (the officer) felt it was not necessary to run away. If you have reason to believe that the place you are in is unsafe, you should inform the officer.
What is frisking and what standard of proof is necessary for a law enforcement officer to do it?
reasonable suspicion that the person may be armed.Added: Frisking is non-invasive patting or movement of the hand over the persons body and clothing sufficient enough to detect any possible weapon concealed on the individual being frisked. It does not include going into the persons pockets UNLESS an item believed to be a weapon is revealed during the 'frisking' process.
What do you need to prove someone is guilty of a homicide?
Enough evidence is needed to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the person committed the homicide.
Use Reasonable doubt in a sentence?
This is a standard of proof needed in a court of law. You must prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone is guilty for them to be convicted. Here are a couple of sentences.Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof in a court.Have you proved beyond reasonable doubt that my client is guilty?
If a law enforcement officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that an automobile contains dangerous weapons can the officer frisk the automobile even though there is no person in it?
Nearly everything in law enforcement is a different situation with different people and factors. Essentially, case law states that if a peace officer has enough probable cause to write a search warrant for a vehicle, then he has enough probable cause to search it without a warrant. This is called the "Vehicle Exclusionary Rule." The courts have basically said that since a motor vehicle is mobile, as opposed to a house, then your expectation of privacy is less. There is also a greater likelihood that, because of the vehicle's mobility, that any contraband, evidence, etc. has a greater chance of getting away. As far as no one being around, again, every situation is unique.
