What does the 4th require?
The police assert that they have received reliable info from a credible person and believe that narcotics are being store at Apt 7. Do they have probable cause?
In order to apply such hearsay info, the showing here falls short on 2 counts. There are no facts set out to support the assertion that the info is reliable and credible. The are no underlying facts or circumstances that support the conclusion that there are narcotics on the premises. We are given no info concerning the source of the informants knowledge, and thus we do not know whether she has seen the narcotics is repeating rumors. Thus there is no concrete basis upon which a reasonable person would conclude that narcotics were on the premises to be searched.
Officer peters has concluded based on intuition developed over 3years of experience, that cocaine is being sold out of Apt 3. Does he have probable cause to search?
Of course not. The most basic rule of probable causer is that there must be concrete facts and circumstances known to the officer that can be articulated and measured against an objective standard.: Would a reasonable person knowing these facts reach the same conclusion?
The CPD received anonymous handwritten letter stating that Sue and Lance Bates, who live in condo, were making their living selling narcotics. The letter detailed the usual manner in which the op was carried out. L would typically fly to miami, where he would purchase the drugs. Sue would drive their volvo down and meet him. L would drive the car home with the drugs in the trunk, and sue would fly. The letter asserted that sue would be driving to Miami again on May 3rd, that L would fly down some days later, and that he would return by car with $100k worth of drugs. The writer also stated that there were drugs worth a similar amount in the Bates basement. Subsequent police investigation confirmed the address and revealed that L had a reservation to fly to miami on May 5th. Arrangements were made for surveillance and he was observed boarding the plane, arriving in miami, proceeding to a hotel and departing the followi
The letter fails to establish that 1 . there is a factual basis for believing the informer is credible and reliable and 2 there is a factual basis for crediting the informant's conclusion. Illinois v Gates may allow reliance on the anonymous tipper and the detailed nature and police corroboration may satisfy the first part (details must be suspicious though).
FBI agents have observed one Pete pinelli, who is known to law enforcement officers as a bookmaker, entering and leaving a particular apartment over the course of 5 days. A reliable informant told the agents that Pinelli is operating a bookmaking business at the apartment by use of two telephones inside. A check with the telephone company revealed that the apartment does have 2 telephones installed. Do the police have probable cause.
While the reputation of the subject among law enforcement may be weighed in probable cause determination, specific facts must be set out to support it. The fact that Pinelli has been observed by police frequenting particular apt that contains 2 phones is as consistent with innocent behavior as it is with criminal and is insufficient to justify a reasonable person concluding that evidence of a crime will be found on the premises. If probable cause exists it must be on the informant's tip. On the 2 pronged test, the tip is insufficient. First there is no underlying factual support for the assertion that the informant is reliable. Second there is no indication of how the informant knew that Pinelli was running a bookmaking operation. There is no sufficient detail.
An informant reported to the police that one Fred Fraper, traveling from Chicago, would arrive at the Denver train station on either 9.08 or 9.09 carrying a tan zipper bag containing heroin. The informant who had previously provided accurate and reliable information to the police regarding narcotics, presented a detailed physical description of Fraper and the clothing he would be wearing and reported that he would be walking very fast. Police officers staked out the train station and on sept 9, they observed a man fitting the description disembark a chicago train and proceed to walk quickly toward an exit. is there probable cause.
While there is a basis (although somewhat conclusory) set out for believing in the reliability of the informant (previous accuarte info), there is no factual basis for evaluating the accuracy of his conclusion that Fraper would be carrying heroin. IN Draper v US, the court rules that probable cause to arrest existed because the deficiencies in the info known to the police were overcome by the detailed nature of the informants report, as well as the verification of those detailed nature of the informants report, as well as tje verification of those details by police observations at the train station.
Officer peters , while acting UC, observed a white powdery substance on the kitchen table in Apt 3. He further observed several persons sniffing the powder and appearing to get high. They are paid large amounts of cash to the tenant in return for plastic bags of the powder. Based on his firsthand observations, as well as his long experience with narcotics, officer Peters has concluded that the substance is cocaine. Does he have probable cause to arrest the participants and seize the powder?
no problem of credibility of the source of the info, courts grant some deference to an experienced officers expertise. Those two combined, the court would find that Officer's conclusion was reason able and that he has demonstrated probable cause