Probable Cause and Arrest Procedures in Pennsylvania

  • Probable Cause (§1.2)

  • Definition: A requirement established by Pennsylvania courts, to determine probable cause for arrest by examining the totality of circumstances facing the police.

  • Standard: All facts must be considered as a whole versus individually, focusing on what a trained officer perceives through their senses.

  • Commonwealth v. Ellis (1986): Probable cause established when a reasonable person believes a crime was committed. Citing Commonwealth v. Travaglia (1983), this underscores that probable cause is about the probability of criminality, not certainty.

  • Court Decisions:

  1. Commonwealth v. Romero (1996): Probable cause when an officer sees an individual with a firearm in a prohibited area. Officer's observations create reasonable inferences of criminal activity.

  2. Commonwealth v. Cox (1996): Defendant's confession is a strong basis for establishing probable cause, regardless of prior statements.

  3. Commonwealth v. Burnside (1993): Officer's observations in a known drug area, combined with subsequent actions of concealment by the suspect, established probable cause.

  4. Commonwealth v. Defleminque (1973): Observations of two men engaging with suspicious items indicate probable cause to investigate suspected theft from a school.

  5. Commonwealth v. Jones (2015): Detection of burnt marijuana smell from a vehicle warrants probable cause for DUI testing without further prerequisites, highlighting different standards for alcohol vs. marijuana DUI cases.

  6. Warrantless Arrests:

  7. Warrantless arrests are permissible in public areas under probable cause rules; however, they can only be performed under strict circumstances (e.g., misdemeanor arrests in presence of officers, specific statutory exceptions).

  8. Commonwealth v. Freeman (1986) confirms an officer can execute a warrantless arrest if they have probable cause for a felony.

  9. Entry of Dwellings:

  10. Entry into a home to effectuate an arrest requires a warrant based on probable cause unless exigent circumstances prevent acquiring such a warrant (e.g., immediate threat to safety).

  11. Payton v. New York (1980) establishes that officers cannot just enter a residence using only an arrest warrant.

  12. Lange v. California (2021): High-speed chases of misdemeanor suspects on the run do not always justify warrantless entry into a home for arrest without analyzing surrounding circumstances.

  13. Use of Force:

  14. The use of force, even deadly force, is subject to the Fourth Amendment and should be judged under a standard of reasonableness in cases of arrests or investigative stops (Graham v. Connor, 1989).

  15. Officers are expected to assess threats based both on the surrounding conditions and nature of the crime at hand.

  16. The Court emphasizes the need for a balanced examination of the officer's conduct amid potentially dangerous situations.