"dr. ldmf [ph.d, j.d.]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Sue - yes, but possibly instead of "knowing" something, they must
have probable (probabilistic) cause to believe a crime has been comitted
and the subject committed it (or the subject might be endangering the
policeman and a weapon is hidden where searched) and likely other
reasons but not absolute assurance or knowledge.
I am trying to remember: for 's&s' probable cause is needed, but for a
"Terry stop" (briefly detaining a subject) there's a lesser standard
which is "reasonable suspicion." Memory tells me this is associated for
example with "profiles" like drug courier profiles, common in airport
temporary detainments without arrest, just to investigate. This comes
from case law.
I took this course in 1985 and haven't been thinking about it so correct
me from any source and I will still :) your way! Best wishes, :) LDMF.
PS: (ed alert ed alert ed alert ed alert etc.)
-------------------------Sue Hartigan
wrote:-----------------------------
>
> Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hi Dr. L.:
>
> I found this example in a book that Ed suggested I get:
>
> "A policeman, patrolling a high crime area where narcotics offenses are
> particularly troublesome, observes two men exchange money on a street
> and then go to a nearby car to retrieve a package from the trunk. One
> of the men sticks his finger in the bag, puts his finger in his mouth to
> taste something, stuffs the bag in his pocket and walks away. This
> routine occurs several times. The owner of the vehicle is known to the
> officer as a drug dealer. The policeman has *probable cause* to obtain
> a warrant to search the vehicle and any person who receives a package
> from the trunk."
>
> So I gather that what it really means is the element of a valid search
> and seizure would have to consist of the police knowing facts and the
> circumstances surrounding them at the time, to know that a crime has
> been or is being committed. IOW knowledge and common sense. :)
>
> Looks to me like a cop should be a lawyer too though. :(
>
> Sue
> >
> > Sue - thanks for posting this advance notice; Ed probably knows a good
> > deal sbout this, but its always fascinated me, what is required for
> > probable' cause or reasonable suspicion' for police to search a car. I
> > guess they can always seize what's in 'plain sight or wing-span', or on
> > reasonable suspicion that someone or someplace suggests a crime in which
> > the person or place is involved, or open a car trunk with a leg sticking
> > out! (on the above reasoning), but apparently the states are split on
> > this blanket search deal. I always thought it was against the 4th
> > amendment, but what do uu think? Again thanks for the post, its a good
> > test case don't u think? C U soon, :) LDMF. (PS: the word 'reasonable'
> > used above is a toughie to define!)
>
> --
> Two rules in life:
>
> 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> 2.
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
