Originally Posted by
TWA884
In the jurisdiction where I practice and where the arrest took place, Probable Cause is defined as follows:
Reasonable suspicion is about as close as it can be explained in lay language. In hundreds of trials, I have never once had a judge forbid me from using that language when I discuss the different burdens of proof in my closing arguments to the jury.
Although I haven't prosecuted in a number of years, I am going to respectfully disagree since I believe there is a significant difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause as
illustrated:
"Probable cause" means that the officer must possess sufficiently trustworthy facts to believe that a crime has been committed. In some cases, an officer may need only a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to conduct a limited search. Reasonable suspicion means that the officer has sufficient knowledge to believe that criminal activity is at hand. This level of knowledge is less than that of probable cause, so reasonable suspicion is usually used to justify a brief frisk in a public area or a traffic stop at roadside. To possess either probable cause or reasonable suspicion, an officer must be able to cite specific articulable facts to warrant the intrusion.
[snip]
The general rule is that to make an arrest, the police must obtain an arrest warrant. However, if an officer has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and there is no time to obtain a warrant, the officer may make a warrantless arrest.
I would think this type of issue comes up in preliminary/suppression hearings, so I can see why the judge doesn't care too much how it is presented to the jury as that issue has already been settled prior thereto.