Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
however we are not talking about a random search. When suspected criminal behavior is protected by the courts because of their activism we are in more trouble. When cops cant be trusted to use their experience and instincts to deter probable criminal behavior and the courts are going to overrule that ability how exactly are the police supposed to do their jobs? This police intrusion stuff is off the wall. Protecting citizens rights is a tremendous responsibility but not allowing the police to do their jobs and allow criminals to be prosecuted properly is a danger to public safety as well.
|
But the issue in the case was exactly what you're assuming -- whether or not it was "probable criminal behavior." The exact legal issue was whether a hand to hand exchange of money for some small unidentified object in the proverbial "high crime area," when coupled with a cop's testimony that he, personally, believed it was a drug transaction, gives rise to probable cause to arrest. The question at the heart of this issue is where do you draw the line? Even putting aside the dilemma of whether it's appropriate to have different standards for a "high crime area," which is usually a poor, inner-city neighborhood, as opposed to a more affluent suburban setting, do you let a cop decide that he's got probable cause to arrest or do you let the courts decide?
In the case addressed by the opinion noir, the cop simply said that he believed that he saw a drug transaction without telling the reviewing court exactly why he believed that. That's like having a bunch of armed judges running around on the streets (a la Judge Dredd) who not only make the arrest but also make the legal determination as to whether the arrest passes constitutional muster. Here in Pennsylvania, the cops are not hamstrung by this decision. A cop can still demonstrate to a reviewing court that he had probable cause if he relates what he saw as well as telling the court why, in his experience, he believed that he was observing a drug transaction. In that way, the court decides whether there was enough, not the cop.
Even if a cop is unsure about what he saw, or if he can't verbalize why his "instincts" tell him that drugs were involved, he could probably, under the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, conduct a temporary stop for further investigation. If the person runs, or does something else to add to the level of suspicion, he could be arrested. If the person is innocent, and the cop's instincts are dead wrong, then an innocent person isn't subjected to the intrusion of being arrested and all that entails (e.g., public humiliation at the least, maybe handcuffing, maybe fingerprinting, getting locked up and given a body cavity search if it goes further). Or, a cop could just watch to see if there are other transactions without immediately conducting a stop, which, if there were other transactions, would probably kick it to the level of probable cause and thus permit an arrest.
Despite the Chief Justice's prose, I think the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck the appropriate balance between protecting the public's safety and protecting the public's civil rights.