Difference Between Probable Cause And Arrest
An arrest is defined as the taking of a person into custody against their will for the purpose of criminal prosecution or interrogation. An arrest, similar to searches, can be made with or without the use of a warrant, but regardless of whether or not a warrant was used probable cause must be determined in both cases. The main difference between the two is that in arrests that use a warrant, probable cause has been determined before the arrest by a judge or magistrate. In arrests made without the use of a warrant, the police make the determination of probable cause and have to be able to articulate it at a later point to justify the arrest. If the warrantless arrest is deemed unlawful, and it is found that the person in custody had their constitutional
…show more content…
Depending on the jurisdiction there may be a distinction between officers who are on-duty or off-duty at the time of arrest, but generally, officers are authorized to act when the necessary probable cause exists to necessitate intervention. The second element is intent to arrest and although, the intent to arrest exists solely in the mind of the officer, it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the encounter with the defendant even if the officer never explicitly told them that they were under arrest. The third element of an arrest is seizure and detention; seizure in this case can be either actual, meaning the officer touched the defendant in some way, and might of even used force, or constructive which means that the arrest was accomplished through words only and there was no physical touching, grabbing, holding, or use of force involved. If a suspect never surrenders to the show of police authority, no seizure has occurred. The last element of an arrest is the understanding by the individual that is being arrested. The test to determine whether a person has been arrested is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the police had restrained the person’s liberty so that they are no longer free to
Depending on the jurisdiction there may be a distinction between officers who are on-duty or off-duty at the time of arrest, but generally, officers are authorized to act when the necessary probable cause exists to necessitate intervention. The second element is intent to arrest and although, the intent to arrest exists solely in the mind of the officer, it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the encounter with the defendant even if the officer never explicitly told them that they were under arrest. The third element of an arrest is seizure and detention; seizure in this case can be either actual, meaning the officer touched the defendant in some way, and might of even used force, or constructive which means that the arrest was accomplished through words only and there was no physical touching, grabbing, holding, or use of force involved. If a suspect never surrenders to the show of police authority, no seizure has occurred. The last element of an arrest is the understanding by the individual that is being arrested. The test to determine whether a person has been arrested is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the police had restrained the person’s liberty so that they are no longer free to