Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's the best part! Also, you can use the arrows on your keyboard to flip through pages quickly.

Click below to buy the books, and a portion of the proceeds goes to
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital! Use this link to buy the books, and a portion of the proceeds goes to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital
Join the conversation!
There are now 10 comments... what are your thoughts?
  1. Alex says

    There’s a typo- “…they’d have to show show that…”

  2. Thanks for pointing that
    that out! How’d I miss that?

  3. Michael says

    Looks like you duplicated the word “show” in the next-to-last bubble. Great stuff in all!

  4. Tim says

    If the police don’t need a warrant to perform a reasonable search, then why do they ever get one?

    • CYA, mostly. Getting a warrant means that a judge has already certified the existence of probable cause, so the search will be valid as long as the warrant is valid and the search is conducted according to said warrant.

      Also, police generally don’t need a warrant in the case of a field search/arrest because there’s some element of urgency. If after conducting an investigation a detective wants to make an arrest or conduct a search, they will usually be required to get a warrant since that element of urgency doesn’t exist if one is back at the precinct.

    • I would imagine that many searches are considered reasonable if you have a warrant but unreasonable if you don’t.

  5. LookielouE1707 says

    Also, for most of its history the fourth amendment applied only to federal action, whereas most law enforcement was done by the states, so its scope was rather limited.

  6. Probable cause means more likely than not? I had the impression that it was much lower than that.

Class Participation