The following items outline some of what a law enforcer must incorporate into the process of justifying acts of making lawful commands and actions toward the public. An enforcer that fails to obtain evidence that justifies application of lawful authority likely involves an enforcer violating a person’s constitutional and legal rights. Such violations can be challenged in a court of law.
Law enforcers apply laws written by legislators. Figuratively explained, a justice acts as a referee who reviews evidence to determine if the officer followed protocols regarding evidence and procedure according to department protocols and State procedural requirements. Each enforcer is obligated by law to obtain evidence in each encounter, provided by a suspect, that justifies application of lawful authority upon a person of the public. The evidence must equate to a minimum of reasonable suspicion or probable cause for an office to make lawful commands toward a person of the public.
Investigated by Officer
Investigation is a systematic process of gathering facts, evidence, and information to determine if a crime occurred, identify the perpetrator, and build a case for prosecution, involving activities like interviewing witnesses, collecting physical evidence, conducting surveillance, and documenting findings to establish a factual record and bring offenders to justice.
The open view doctrine enables officers to investigate a person through observation. A lawful stop/investigation requires an officer possessing evidence granting a right to make lawful commands toward a suspect. An officer can also act lawfully upon receiving a complaint about an individual. The evidence must qualify as a minimum of reasonable suspicion and is explained to the suspect prior to the act. On a later date a judge will also review the evidence for a following qualification for lawful action.
Unreasonable Searches & Seizures
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is granted to the public in the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Wisconsin Constitution Articles 1 & 11. Showing an officer had no evidence that disqualified fourth amendment protection serves as a credible element for defense or prosecution. Note, privacy rights differ when the concept of protecting the public becomes part of the equation.
Due Process
Guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, law enforcers are required constitutionally to consider due process while interacting with citizens. Suspects are granted due process throughout criminal events.
More than a Mere Hunch/Gut Feeling
A legal standard for police stops and searches requires reasonable suspicion based on specific articulable facts. A gut feeling does not justify detaining someone. Officers need concrete reasons supported by evidence to make lawful commands toward a citizen/suspect under the Fourth Amendment. Guessing should not be accepted by a judge as evidence for stopping a person for investigation. Officers are forbidden from relying on gut feelings or vague conclusions like “officer safety” or “non-compliant,” to ensure constitutional rights aren’t violated.
Articulable Facts
Specific concrete details and observations an officer must be able to clearly explain (articulate) to a suspect for justifying a suspicion of criminal activity, that goes beyond a mere hunch or gut feeling, to legally stop, detain or search someone. These facts must be objective enough that a reasonable person could understand them and connect them to potential illegal behavior.
Comparison: Lawful & Unlawful
Things lawful are actions permitted or established by law that are considered law-abiding or legitimate and follow established rules or codes. Things unlawful are against a specific written law or violation of public policy. Such evidence must be referred to during an officer stop and later in a court of law to justify the officer’s actions.
Reasonable Suspicion
Officer must have specific, articulable facts, based on their training and experience, leading them to reasonably believe a person is committing, about to commit, or has committed a crime, justifying a brief stop or detention, even if it’s less than probable cause, requiring more than a hunch but less than proof beyond doubt, often determined by the “totality of the circumstances”.
Probable Cause
The officer has enough clear, reasonable facts and evidence (more than a hunch) to believe a crime has occurred or is occurring, justifying an arrest, search, or seizure. It requires concrete information, not just suspicion, and is determined case-by-case.
Comparison: Reasonable Suspicion & Probable Cause (Wisconsin)
A core difference between the two is quantity and quality of evidence. Reasonable suspicion requires more than a hunch but less than what qualifies as probable cause. Probable cause needs facts to show a crime likely happened.
In Wisconsin, reasonable suspicion allows brief investigative stops, like Terry stops, based on specific articulated facts suggesting potential criminal activity. Probable cause is a higher standard requiring a reasonable belief a crime has occurred, justifying arrests, warrants, and more intrusive actions. Reasonable suspicion sometimes develops into probable cause during an encounter. An officer can interpret denials and fleeing a scene as admission of guilt prompting further investigation.