LibGuides: Verde, Brandon: American Jurisprudence

American Jurisprudence 2d

West's Key Number Digest, § 89. Investigatory stop or detention

Although a mere hunch does not create reasonable suspicion for an investigative stop, the level of suspicion that the reasonable suspicion standard requires is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence, and obviously less than is necessary for probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4. Navarette v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1683 (2014).

Although reasonable articulable suspicion is considerably less than proof of wrongdoing by a preponderance of the evidence and is less demanding even than the "fair probability" standard for probable cause, it nevertheless demands the articulation of reasons to believe the person to be stopped is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime, beyond an inchoate and unparticularized hunch; similarly, although reasonable suspicion is a less demanding standard in the sense that it can arise from information that is less reliable than that required to show probable cause, reliability is nevertheless also a consideration in the evaluation of reasonable suspicion. U.S. Const. Amend. 4; Colo. Const. art. 2, § 7 People v. Mason, 2013 CO 32, 310 P.3d 1003 (Colo. 2013).

To determine whether an officer had a reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop, a court must look at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the officer's decision to conduct the stop and must examine the facts leading up to the stop to determine whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion. In making reasonable-suspicion determinations, the courts must look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the detaining officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing. The "totality of the circumstances" approach to making reasonable-suspicion determinations allows officers to draw on their own experience and specialized training to make inferences from and deductions about the cumulative information available to them that might well elude an untrained person.In order to uphold the protections of the Fourth Amendment, an officer conducting an investigatory stop must have a reasonable suspicion, based on objective and articulable facts, that criminal activity has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. For a reasonable suspicion to exist such as to justify an investigatory stop, the police must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. 68 Am. Jur. 2d Searches and Seizures § 89

American Jurisprudence 2d

West's Key Number Digest, § 35. Suspicion and suspicious circumstances

However, “reasonable suspicion” has been held sufficient to establish probable cause. Reasonable suspicion need not rise to the degree of proof sufficient to sustain a conviction. Reasonable suspicion justifying a stop and frisk may escalate to probable cause for an arrest by an individual's conduct. Thus, reasonable suspicion can escalate to probable cause for an arrest when the defendant put up a violent struggle, refusing to be frisked. Where police officers reasonably suspect that an individual may be engaged in criminal activity, and the individual deliberately takes flight when the officers attempt to stop and question him or her, the officers generally no longer have mere reasonable suspicion, but probable cause to arrest. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest § 35

Reasonable suspicion," as basis for investigatory stop, means that the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion. State v. Barrow, 408 N.J. Super. 509, 975 A.2d 539 (App. Div. 2009).

Defendant, who was found sitting in his car near the scene of robbery, was found in a suspicious place and under circumstances reasonably showing him to be guilty of a felony, as would justify warrantless arrest. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4; Vernon's Ann.Texas C.C.P. art. 14.03. Brown v. State, 334 S.W.3d 789 (Tex. App. Tyler 2010),

American Jurisprudence 2d

West's Key Number Digest, § 14. Showing of probable cause

In determining whether probable cause exists to issue an arrest warrant, a magistrate is not required to find a showing of criminal activity, as the mere probability of such criminal activity is sufficient for probable cause, and furthermore, the information offered to demonstrate probable cause must be viewed in a common sense, nontechnical, ungrudging and positive manner. A court must limit its inquiry to the information within the four corners of the affidavit submitted in support of probable cause when determining whether the arrest warrant was issued upon probable cause. Thus, the determination of probable cause for an arrest warrant is made from the facts as known at the moment the warrant is requested and is unaffected by facts later discovered. 5 Am. Jur. 2d Arrest § 14