An arrest without a warrant is constitutionally valid if the officers had probable cause to make the arrest. In order to actually put you under arrest, the police must believe a crime has been committed and that the person they stopped committed it. If not, the stop is invalid and whatever happened next could be thrown out of court. If the answer to one or more of these questions is “yes”, then the officers must prove they had reasonable suspicion for the stop. Did the officers block the person’s path?.Did the officers approach the person in a non-public place?.Did the officer’s language or tone of voice indicate that the person was required to answer?.Was there a threatening presence of several officers?.The test to figure out whether a stop is a “seizure” (a Terry stop) or just a voluntary consensual stop considers several factors:
But in order to do a pat down, the police must have specific facts that they say make them afraid you might have a weapon - they can’t just say they had a hunch. What’s more, the police are even allowed to pat you down if they have a “reasonable fear for his own or others’ safety” before frisking. This doctrine allows police to act when they think a crime is about to happen - they don’t have to sit back and wait until they have probable cause to arrest. In other words, in some cases, the police can stop someone for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior - even when there is no probable cause to make an arrest. This does require that the police have “reasonable suspicion.” It is not considered a “seizure” but is a temporary stop that is allowed when there is “articulable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a crime.”
Not an arrest, but you are not free to walk away.
This second kind of police interaction involves a temporary detention. A “Terry stop” (a brief investigatory stop) But generally, if an officer walks up to you on the street without any reason to believe you have been involved in a crime, you are not required to answer his questions.Ģ. I say “in theory” because if a police officer in uniform approaches you and asks you a question, it is sometimes hard to know whether you are required to respond. These types of questions are allowed as long as the police don’t give the impression that you are required to answer.For example, as long as the police don’t make a show of force or authority. This is because in theory, t he person can always refuse to provide information or say no to the search and walk away. Police can ask anyone for ID anytime and can ask to search someone’s bag anytime, without having to have a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. Asking “voluntary” questions like this does not implicate the Fourth Amendment is not considered a “search” or “seizure” under the Constitution. This first type of interaction involves the police walking up to someone on the street and asking questions. Which one of these does your case fall into? Generally, there are three types of interactions with police - each requiring different levels of suspicion by the police before they can stop or question you. This means that, generally, the police cannot seize or search you without a warrant–unless a specific exception applies. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. If you have been stopped, questioned and arrested or cited by the police, one of the first questions you should ask is whether the initial stop was constitutionally valid.