Post Is Due By 11:59 Pm EST On January 26, 2024

Post Is Due By 1159 Pm Est On Friday January 26 2024questionsthi

Post is due by 11:59 p.m. EST on Friday, January 26, 2024. Questions This chapter of the text opens with the issue of defining the term probable cause. The term is a difficult one to define and has been addressed by a number of United States Supreme Court cases. Discuss the different cases that address the definition of probable cause and their impact on policing. In United States v. Leon (1984) the Court held that five-month-old information from an informant is "stale" and cannot be used to establish probable cause. In the same case the Court stated that the issue of staleness "must be determined by the circumstances of each case." Discuss situations in which evidence would not be "stale" even for a considerable length of time.

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of probable cause is central to the functioning of the criminal justice system, underpinning the authority to conduct searches, seizures, and arrests. As a foundational element of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, distinguishing what constitutes probable cause has been a subject of extensive judicial interpretation, especially by the United States Supreme Court. Several landmark cases have shaped the legal understanding of probable cause, influencing policing practices and judicial standards across the nation.

The seminal case, Brinegar v. United States (1949), established that probable cause exists where "facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonable trustworthy information" are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense is being committed. This case emphasized that probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard, not requiring absolute certainty but rather a reasonable ground for belief. As such, it allowed law enforcement a degree of discretion in assessing whether probable cause exists based on the totality of the circumstances.

Building upon this, Illinois v. Gates (1983) further refined the notion of probable cause by adopting the "totality of the circumstances" test, replacing the previously more rigid two-prong standard. The Court held that probable cause is to be assessed based on the factual and practical considerations of everyday life, emphasizing a practical, common-sense approach. Significantly, this case expanded the permissible sources of information for establishing probable cause to include anonymous tips, as long as they are corroborated by independent police investigation, which impacts policing by allowing more flexible use of intelligence sources.

In United States v. Leon (1984), the Court introduced the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule. While the case did not directly alter the definition of probable cause, it clarified that evidence obtained from a search conducted under a warrant later found to lack probable cause may still be admissible if law enforcement officers acted in good faith and followed proper procedures. This decision had profound implications, reducing the frequency of exclusion of evidence and affecting policing by, in some interpretative cases, encouraging diligent, good-faith investigations.

The issue of staleness of information, as discussed in Leon, involves determining whether evidence or information is still timely enough to establish probable cause. The Court acknowledged that facts can become outdated or "stale," especially if they do not suggest ongoing criminal activity. However, the Court also recognized circumstances where evidence would not be stale despite the passage of time. For example, evidence of ongoing criminal violations, such as drug trafficking or organized crime, remains relevant over longer periods because these activities are continuous or recurrent. For instance, a police investigation into a drug cartel that has led to recent surveillance or recovered contraband indicates ongoing activity, thus making older information still pertinent.

Similarly, cases involving persistent criminal enterprises or patterns of illegal activity provide grounds for considering older evidence as relevant to current probable cause. If law enforcement can show that criminal operations are continuous or that there is reason to believe illicit activity is ongoing, even older informant tips or surveillance data can be deemed reliable and timely. For example, ongoing embezzlement schemes, organized crime activities, or repeated drug shipments suggest uninterrupted criminal operations, thereby negating claims of staleness.

Moreover, technological advances have impacted the evaluation of staleness. For example, electronic surveillance or monitoring of ongoing communications can provide current, ongoing evidence of criminal conduct, thereby extending the relevance of information previously obtained. Additionally, when law enforcement has corroborated initial tips with recent independent observations, the evidence remains fresh in terms of probable cause assessment.

The importance of context cannot be overstated when evaluating staleness. Circumstances such as the nature of the crime, the typical duration of illegal activities, the relevance of recent developments, and the availability of corroborative evidence all influence whether older information becomes stale. For example, in trafficking cases, evidence of recent shipments or surveillance activity indicates ongoing operations, maintaining the relevance of older intelligence.

In conclusion, the judicial interpretation of probable cause, as influenced by pivotal cases, reflects a balance between individual rights and effective law enforcement. Understanding the nuances of staleness is crucial, as it governs whether evidence obtained from older information can be used legally. Situations involving ongoing crimes, continuous criminal enterprises, recent corroborating evidence, and technological tracking all support the relevance of older information, ensuring law enforcement agencies can effectively combat sophisticated criminal networks without infringing constitutional protections.

References

• Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).
• Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983).
• United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984).
• Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
• Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013).
• United States v. Whren, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
• Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981).
• Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
• Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925).
• U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Education. (2003). Probable Cause and Search & Seizure Law.