University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: January 16, 1999
Faculty on the Site.
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Latest update: January 16, 1999
Faculty on the Site.
Probable cause is another term that never applies in our CSUDH moot court problems but always comes up anyway. That is because "probable cause" is what police must have to justify an arrest. No police in our problems. No probable cause. Nonetheless, legal professionals are used to the term, and it does indicate the reasonable foundation that is required to justify an action, even by private citizens. Terms like reasonable justification, reasonable grounds, articulable facts, etc. are more appropriately applied to private citizens, but probable cause will slip into the discussion occasionally.
There is no "bright line" rule for what establishes probable cause. That means there is no single determining factor; the existence of probable cause must be determined by the trier of fact from the facts in the record. You establish the existence or non-existence of probable cause by showing that the facts in your case are similar to, or can be distinguished from, those of other cases where probable cause has been found or not found.
Mere suspicion is not sufficient to establish probable cause. There must be some corroborating facts that the person detaining or arresting can articulate to illustrate that he/she had probable cause.
Reasonable cause is simply a less rigorous standard than that for probable cause. If a reasonable person would believe from the facts laid before the trier of fact that there was cause to detain, then you have reasonable cause.
Authority: Annotation: 76 L.Ed 2d 1018, at 1027. on Texas v. Brown, (1983) 75 L.Ed.2d 502, 103 S.Ct. 1535.
Quoting from annotation:
"Noting that probable cause is a flexible, common-sense standard, the court stated that it merely requires that the facts available to an officer would warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of a crime. [Court is discussing p.c. for plain view seizure by a police officer.] the court emphasized that probable cause does not demand any showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false. Rather, according to the court, a practical nontechnical probability that incriminating evidence is involved is all that is required." at 1027.
Case authority: People v. Lee, (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d Supp. 9, 204 Cal.Rptr. 667.
Quoting from Lee:
"The evidence clearly disclosed that the offense had, in fact, been committed. Therefore, the only question remaining is whether the offense was committed "in the presence" of Paul. The term "in his presence" has historically been liberally construed in this state. Neither physical proximity nor sight is essential. (McDonald v. Justice Court, (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 960, 58 Cal.Rptr. 29.) In People v. Burgess, (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 36, 338 P.2d 524 the court held that a private citizen may arrest another when circumstances exist which would cause a reasonable person to believe that a crime had been committed in his presence."(2) In the instant case the circumstances clearly suggest to any reasonable person that an offense had been committed in the presence of the security guard. Paul, with 15 years experience, observed the collection of the clothing items and concealment of two of those pieces of clothing. In addition, she heard the clerk's instruction to Lee and her obvious circumvention of those orders. Thereafter, the replacement of the items as set forth above together with the absence of additional clothing in the dressing room could only lead to the conclusion that Lee had concealed merchandise with the intent to steal the same. The separation of Lee from Paul's observations by the closing of the fitting room door cannot be deemed such a removal of Lee from the "presence" of Paul so as to strip her of authority to make the arrest." Lee
Additional example: An example of court's reasoning on probable cause issues: In re Leslie H., (1985) 215 Cal.Rptr. 423 Ordered not published!
Facts from Leslie H.: Remember you cannot quote from this opinion; but you may find the language useful.
"(1) It is without dispute that appellant was lawfully detained by Beshears, the security guard of the store, for attempted shoplifting. Section 490.5, subdivision [Footnote omitted.] provides that "A merchant may detain a person for a reasonable time for the purpose of conducting an investigation in a reasonable manner whenever the merchant has probable cause to believe the person to be detained is attempting to unlawfully take or has unlawfully taken merchandise from the merchant's premises."The record at hand indicates that Beshears observed appellant and her companion through the store's TV cameras (photoscreens) for some 10 to 15 minutes. They were going up and down in the store, picked up items off the shelf and moved down the aisle where there were no other people. Beshears also noticed that appellant and Andrew were watching the shopping carts of other customers, following them up and down the aisle. This activity of appellant and Andrew looked both unusual and suspicious and fit into the pattern in which purse thieves in the store generally operate. After this 10 to 15 minutes of suspicious activity, appellant and her companion disappeared and went to the back room which was reserved for store employees only. Based upon his personal observation Beshears suspected that appellant and her boyfriend had attempted to shoplift. His initial suspicion ripened into probable cause when he learned from Washington that shortly before the duo had committed a purse theft in the MacArthur Lucky store. In short, based upon these facts Beshears had probable cause to believe that appellant and Andrew were attempting to unlawfully take merchandise from the store premises and their detention for further investigation was fully justified under the provisions of the special shoplifting statute.
"(2) In the second place, the detention and arrest of the two suspects were warranted also under the theory of citizen's arrest. The pertinent statute, section 837, provides: "A private person may arrest another: (p) 1. For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence. (p) 2. When the person arrested has committed a felony, although not in his presence. (p) 3. When a felony has been in fact committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it."
"Appellant's arrest was authorized under each of the three subdivisions of the section. Shoplifting is a misdemeanor which constitutes a public offense within the meaning of the statute. (People v. Wilkins (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 763, 768, 104 Cal.Rptr. 89.) Also, it was committed in the presence of Mr. Beshears. The two other subdivisions are likewise applicable to the instant case. The record shows that, shortly prior to the attempted shoplifting, appellant and her companion had been caught committing a purse theft at the MacArthur Lucky store. Although the purse was returned to the elderly female victim when she screamed and pointed her fingers at appellant and her boyfriend, this circumstance does not alter the fact that there was reasonable cause to believe appellant had committed grand theft, [footnote omitted] a felony offense.
"Finally the record reveals that prior to appellant's detention and arrest Beshears had been advised by Washington, the manager of the MacArthur Lucky store, about the purse theft incident and appellant's participation therein. [footnote omitted] These facts clearly establish that, in fact, a felony had been committed and that Beshears, the arresting citizen, had reasonable cause for believing that appellant and her companion had committed it. As a consequence, appellant's arrest was justified on the two latter bases as well."