Difference between reasonable suspicion, probable cause

By Paul Gottlieb

Special to the Peninsula Daily News

OLYMPIA — Reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause: Both can be officer judgment calls, but one often requires more documentation.

Engrossed Senate Bill 5352, being considered by state lawmakers as they approach the April 23 end of the legislative session, lowers the threshold for vehicle pursuits from probable cause to reasonable suspicion.

Probable cause that certain crimes have been committed or are being committed is an evidence-based standard also used for making an arrest or serving a search warrant. Reasonable suspicion is not enough for an arrest or warrant and does not require physical evidence.

When an officer has reasonable suspicion, he or she believes a crime “is afoot” and a particular person may be involved, Port Angeles Police Chief Brian Smith said.

“With probable cause, a crime has been committed, and there are facts that show a particular person has committed that crime,” he said.

“Reasonable suspicion is a much lower standard,” he said Friday.

“It’s something we deal with every day. It’s fundamental to our work. It’s not a hunch, it’s not a gut feeling. It’s the step before probable cause. Absent being able to use reasonable suspicion, law enforcement is paralyzed,” Smith said.

Reasonable suspicion is based on the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Terry vs. Ohio, that determined an officer could briefly detain a person if, based on the officer’s training and experience, the officer had reason to believe the person was involved in criminal activity.

A brief stop by an officer for reasonable suspicion, known as a Terry stop, “requires a well-founded conviction that the defendant engaged in criminal conduct,” according the 2009 state Supreme Court case, State v. Garvin.

Probable cause, a requirement in the Fourth Amendment for any arrest, exists when, under all circumstances known to the officer, “an objectively reasonable [officer] wold conclude there is a fair probability that a particular person has committed, or was in the act of committing, a crime,” according to the jury instructions.

The Constitution does not define the term probable cause.

“The Supreme Court has attempted to clarify the meaning of [probable cause] on several occasions, while recognizing that probable cause is a concept that is imprecise, fluid, and very dependent on context,” according to the Cornell Law School Legal information Institute (law.cornell.edu).

________

Legislative Reporter Paul Gottlieb, a former senior reporter at Peninsula Daily News, can be reached at cpaulgottlieb@gmail.com.