Chinese thinker Sun Tzu once wrote that “Every battle is won or lost before it’s ever fought. That may or may not be entirely true, but it is certainly true that what happens before a military battle (or a legal one, for that matter) is almost as important as the events that transpire during said battle.
Many times, successful defense in a criminal case hinges on a procedural defect or irregularity because it is impossible for the prosecutor or anyone else to go back in time and correct prior mistakes. While the general principles remain very much the same, the underlying law is almost constantly changing, so it is important to examine these issues frequently.
Pre-Arrest Stops
From the early 1950s through the 1960s, the United States Supreme Court issued a number of opinions which, at the time, significantly expanded the rights of citizens accused of criminal conduct. One of them, Terry v. Ohio, introduced the concept of reasonable suspicion, which is the evidentiary standard that applies at this phase.
Essentially, officers may only detain suspects if there are “specific articulable facts” which suggest criminal activity. Officers can use their training and experience to interpret these facts, but a mere “gut feeling” is insufficient. For many years, although there was no assigned proportion, courts always required that the officer have correct facts as opposed to vague suspicions. But a recent case may have changed that dynamic.
In 2014, the Court issued Heien v. North Carolina. This case began when an officer observed a car with a burned-out tail light. He pulled over the vehicle, and following a consented search, officers discovered cocaine. The stop appears routine, but the problem is that North Carolina law only requires motor vehicles to have one working tail light, so Mr. Heien was not violating the law.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld the subsequent arrest and therefore Mr. Heien’s conviction as well, since the officer’s mistake was “reasonable.” Arguably therefore, if a prosecutor can convince a judge that another officer would have interpreted the same facts in the same way, the stop may now be legal, regardless of the arresting officer’s mistake.
Heien could apply in tip cases, as well. Assume that an officer receives a tip about a suspicious vehicle, but pulls over the wrong car or truck. Under current law, that stop might be permissible as well, even though the officer made a grievous error.
The Arrest
Terry also reinforced the concept of probable cause, which is the evidentiary standard that applies at the arrest phase. For years, defense attorneys and prosecutors alike knew that probable cause was somewhere between reasonable suspicion and probable cause. According to a 2003 case, the probable cause threshold is much closer to the low end than anyone previously thought.
In Maryland v. Pringle, police found cocaine in a back seat armrest and arrested everyone in the car, including Mr. Pringle, who was a front seat passenger. As a non-owner who was on the opposite side of the car, he did not meet the proximity test or knowledge test when it comes to possession of contraband. Nevertheless, the court held that there was a “reasonable ground for belief of guilt,” even though there was not nearly enough evidence to convict Mr. Pringle at trial. In other words, “reasonable” probably means “somewhat likely.”
Police officers make mistakes and blur the lines of reasonable suspicion and probable cause with ease. These minor ‘mistakes’ on the part of law enforcement can cost you your freedom, so do not let them slide. A criminal defense attorney can help you achieve the justice you deserve.
Contact Aggressive Lawyers
The law in some key criminal law areas clearly favors prosecutors. Furthermore, it can be hard to know whether your arrest was carried out with reasonable suspicion or probable cause. If you feel that your rights have been violated during your arrest or during the pre-trial phase of your legal proceedings, having an experienced criminal defense attorney on your side is a necessity. For a confidential consultation with an experienced criminal law attorney in Schaumburg, contact Glasgow & Olsson.
(image courtesy of JP Valery)