Should the police officer arrest the two black men (but not the two white men) in my earlier hypothetical because the probability of their guilt (70%) statistically satisfies the Fourth Amendment's "probable cause" standard for arrest?
Stokes' argument was simple: The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to arrest someone, and suspicion is not probable cause.
"Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis," Justice Scalia concluded.
What about the Fourth Amendment requirement of probable cause to use as evidence in past crimes?
But a search inside the truck without probable cause would violate the Fourth Amendment.
The most controversial element arises from the fact that in accordance with the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, "probable cause" has to be shown before a UK request for extradition of an American citizen will be granted.
That case left lots of questions unanswered, including whether GPS tracking always requires a warrant based on probable cause, and how the Fourth Amendment applies to tracking someone 24/7 with cellphone location technology.
"Exercising your First Amendment right is not probable cause, it's not reason for suspicion.
The lawsuit also alleges violations of the Fourth Amendment because the municipalities issued warrants without probable cause, as well as violations for the Sixth Amendment due to failure to provide for effective assistance of counsel.
During the argument on Monday, there was general agreement that the arrest itself was supported by probable cause, the standard under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
